[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 2, 2012)]

[Rules and Regulations]

[Pages 26071‐26101]

From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[FR Doc No: 2012‐9978]

[[Page 26071]]

Vol. 77

Wednesday,

No. 85

May 2, 2012

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

40 CFR Parts 141 and 142

Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (UCMR 3)

for Public Water Systems; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2012 / Rules

and Regulations

[[Page 26072]]

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 141 and 142

[Docket No. EPA‐HQ‐OW‐2009‐0090; FRL‐9660‐4]

RIN 2040‐AF10

Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation

(UCMR 3) for Public Water Systems

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

SUMMARY: The 1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)

require that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or

the agency) establish criteria for a program to monitor unregulated

contaminants and publish a list of up to 30 contaminants to be

monitored every five years. This final rule meets the SDWA requirement

by publishing the third Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation

(i.e., UCMR 3), listing the unregulated contaminants to be monitored

and addressing the requirements for such monitoring. This final rule

describes analytical methods to monitor for 28 chemical contaminants

and describes the monitoring for two viruses. UCMR 3 provides EPA and

other interested parties with scientifically valid data on the

occurrence of these contaminants in drinking water, permitting the

assessment of the number of people potentially being exposed and the

levels of that exposure. These data are one of the primary sources of

occurrence and exposure information the agency uses to develop

regulatory decisions for these contaminants. In addition, as part of an

Expedited Methods Update, this rule finalizes amendatory language for a

drinking water inorganic analysis table (``Inorganic chemical sampling

and analytical requirements'') in the Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR). This minor editorial correction to the table does not affect the

UCMR program.

DATES: This final rule is effective on June 1, 2012. For purposes of

judicial review, this rule is promulgated as of 1 p.m. Eastern time on

May 16, 2012 as provided in 40 CFR 23.7. The incorporation by reference

of certain publications listed in this rule is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of June 1, 2012.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID

No. EPA‐HQ‐OW‐2009‐0090. All documents in the docket are listed in the

index at www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business

information (CBI) or other information, the disclosure of which is

restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted

material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available

only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are

available either electronically at www.regulations.gov or in hard copy

at the Water Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution

Ave. NW., Washington, DC. This Public Reading Room is open from 8:30

a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The

telephone number for this Public Reading Room is (202) 566‐1744, and

the telephone number for the Water Docket is (202) 566‐2426.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brenda D. Parris, Technical Support

Center, Standards and Risk Management Division, Office of Ground Water

and Drinking Water, United States Environmental Protection Agency,

Office of Water, 26 West Martin Luther King Drive (MS 140), Cincinnati,

Ohio 45268; telephone (513) 569‐7961; or email at

parris.brenda@epa.gov. For general information, contact the Safe

Drinking Water Hotline. Callers within the United States may reach the

Hotline at (800) 426‐4791. The Hotline is open Monday through Friday,

excluding legal holidays, from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Eastern time.

The Safe Drinking Water Hotline may also be found on the Internet at

http://water.epa.gov/drink/contact.cfm.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

Entities regulated by this action are public water systems (PWSs).

All large community and non‐transient non‐community water systems

serving more than 10,000 people are required to monitor. A community

water system (CWS) means a PWS, which has at least 15 service

connections used by year‐round residents or regularly serves an average

of at least 25 year‐round residents. A non‐transient non‐community

water system (NTNCWS) means a PWS that is not a CWS and regularly

serves at least 25 of the same people over six months per year. Only a

nationally representative sample of ``small'' community and non‐

transient non‐community systems serving 10,000 or fewer people are

required to monitor for the chemical analytes (see USEPA, 2001 for a

description of the statistical approach for the nationally

representative sample). EPA will pay for the analysis of samples

collected by these small systems. Transient non‐community water systems

(TNCWS) (i.e., systems that do not regularly serve at least 25 of the

same people over six months per year) are not required to monitor for

the chemical analytes. However, transient ground water systems serving

1,000 or fewer people may be selected for virus monitoring. If

selected, these systems are required to permit EPA to sample and

analyze for List 3 contaminants and pathogen indicators. EPA will pay

for all sampling and analysis costs associated with virus monitoring at

these small systems. Exhibit 1 summarizes UCMR 3 applicability by

system type and size.

Exhibit 1‐‐Applicability of UCMR 3 to Water Utilities by System Type and

Size

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

System size \1\

System type ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Serving >10,000 Serving <=10,000

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

UCMR 3 Assessment Monitoring

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

CWS & NTNCWS................ Requires all systems Requires 800

to monitor for List randomly selected

1 chemicals. systems to monitor

for List 1

chemicals. EPA will

pay for the

analysis of

samples.

TNCWS....................... No requirements..... No requirements.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

[[Page 26073]]

UCMR 3 Screening Survey

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

CWS & NTNCWS................ Requires all systems Requires 480

serving more than randomly selected

100,000, and 320 systems to monitor

randomly selected for List 2

systems serving chemicals. EPA will

10,001 to 100,000 pay for the

to monitor for List analysis of

2 chemicals. samples.

TNCWS....................... No requirements..... No requirements.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

UCMR 3 Pre‐Screen Testing

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

CWS, TNCWS & NTNCWS......... No requirements..... Requires 800

randomly selected
systems to permit

EPA to sample and

analyze List 3

microbes. The

selected systems

will be served by

non‐disinfecting

ground water wells

in vulnerable

areas. EPA will pay

for the analysis of

samples.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

\1\ Based on the retail population, as indicated by SDWIS/Fed on

December 31, 2010.

States, Territories, and Tribes with primary enforcement

responsibility (primacy) to administer the regulatory program for PWSs

under SDWA may participate in the implementation of UCMR 3 through

Partnership Agreements (PAs). These primacy agencies may choose to

perform the required analysis of samples collected for UCMR 3; however,

the PWS remains responsible for compliance with this rule. Regulated

categories and entities are identified in the following exhibit.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Category Examples of potentially regulated entities NAICS \a\

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

State, Local, & Tribal Governments.......... States, local and Tribal governments that analyze water 924110

samples on behalf of public water systems required to

conduct such analysis; States, local and Tribal

governments that directly operate community, transient

and non‐transient non‐community water systems required

to monitor.

Industry.................................... Private operators of community and non‐transient non‐ 221310

community water systems required to monitor.

Municipalities.............................. Municipal operators of community and non‐transient non‐ 924110

community water systems required to monitor.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

\a\ NAICS = North American Industry Classification System.

This exhibit is not exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for

readers regarding entities that may be regulated by this action. This

exhibit lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware may

potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not

listed in the exhibit could also be regulated. To determine whether

your facility is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine

the definition of PWS in Sec. 141.2 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal

Regulations, and applicability criteria in Sec. 141.40(a)(1) and (2)

of this action. If you have questions regarding the applicability of

this action to a particular entity, consult the persons listed in the

preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Section.

B. Copies of This Document and Other Related Information

This document is available for download at: www.regulations.gov.

For other related information, see preceding discussion on docket.

Abbreviations and Acronyms

[mu]g/L Microgram(s) per Liter

ASDWA Association of State Drinking Water Administrators

ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

AGI Acute Gastrointestinal Illness

CCL Contaminant Candidate List

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CWS Community Water System

DQO Data Quality Objectives

DSMRT Distribution System Maximum Residence Time

EO Executive Order

ELISA Enzyme‐linked Immunosorbent Assay

EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPTDS Entry Point to the Distribution System

FR Federal Register

GC/MS Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry

GWUDI Ground Water Under the Direct Influence of Surface Water

HCF‐22 Chlorodifluoromethane

HPLC/MS/MS High‐Performance Liquid Chromatography/Tandem Mass

Spectrometry

HRL Health Reference Level

IC/MS Ion Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry

ICR Information Collection Request

IDC Initial Demonstration of Capability

IHS Indian Health Service

LCMRL Lowest Concentration Minimum Reporting Level

LC/MS/MS Liquid Chromatography/Tandem Mass Spectrometry

LFSM Laboratory Fortified Sample Matrix

LFSMD Laboratory Fortified Sample Matrix Duplicate

MDL Method Detection Limit

MRL Minimum Reporting Level

NAICS North American Industry Classification System

NCOD National Drinking Water Contaminant Occurrence Database

ND Not Detected

NTNCWS Non‐Transient Non‐Community Water System

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

NWQL National Water Quality Laboratory

OMB Office of Management and Budget

PA Partnership Agreement
PFBS Perfluorobutanesulfonic Acid

PFC Perfluorinated Compounds

PFHpA Perfluoroheptanoic Acid

PFHxS Perfluorohexanesulfonic Acid

PFNA Perfluorononanoic Acid

PFOA Perfluorooctanoic Acid

PFOS Perfluorooctanesulfonic Acid

PT Proficiency Testing

PWS Public Water System

qPCR Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act

RfD Reference Dose

SDWARS Safe Drinking Water Accession and Review System

SM Standard Methods

SRF State Revolving Fund

SBA Small Business Administration

[[Page 26074]]

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act

SDWIS/Fed Federal Safe Drinking Water Information System

TNCWS Transient Non‐Community Water System

TTHM Total Trihalomethanes

UCMR Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

VOC Volatile Organic Compound

Table of Contents

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

B. Copies of This Document and Other Related Information

II. Statutory Authority and Background

A. What is the statutory authority for UCMR?

B. How does EPA meet these statutory requirements?

III. Summary of This Rule

A. What are the major changes between the proposed and final

UCMR 3 rule?

B. Which Water Systems Must Monitor

1. Applicability Based on Population Served

2. Applicability for Transient Systems

C. Where are samples collected?

1. Entry Point to the Distribution System

2. Distribution System Maximum Residence Time Location

D. What are the UCMR 3 contaminants and associated methods?

1. List Compilation

2. Hormones and Related Methods

3. Metals, Chlorate, and Related Methods

4. Chromium‐6 and Total Chromium, and Related Methods

5. Viruses and Related Methods

6. Perfluorinated Compounds and Related Methods

E. How are laboratories approved for UCMR 3 monitoring?

1. This Rule

2. Summary of Major Comments

F. How were minimum reporting levels determined?

1. This Rule

2. Summary of Major Comments

G. What are the UCMR 3 reporting requirements?

1. General Reporting Requirements/SDWARS

2. Sample Location and Inventory Information (Zip Codes)

3. Disinfectant Type Specifications

4. Reporting Schedule

IV. State and Tribal Participation

A. Partnership Agreements

1. This Rule

2. Summary of Major Comments

B. Governors' Petition and State‐Wide Waivers

1. This Rule

2. Summary of Major Comments

V. Cost and Benefits of This Rule

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and

Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With

Indian Tribal Governments

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From

Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low‐Income

Populations.

K. Congressional Review Act

VII. Public Involvement in Regulation Development

VIII. References

List of Exhibits

Exhibit 1: Applicability of UCMR 3 to Water Utilities by System

Type and Size

Exhibit 2a: UCMR 3 Final Contaminant Lists

Exhibit 2b: Total Chromium Monitoring\3\

Exhibit 3: Timeline of UCMR 3 Activities
Exhibit 4: Changes to UCMR 3 Between Proposed and Final Rule

Exhibit 5a: 29 Unregulated Analytes and Associated Methods

Exhibit 5b: Total Chromium Monitoring

Exhibit 6: Observed Background Levels During MRL Determination

Exhibit 7: UCMR 3 Per Respondent Burden and Cost Summary for the

ICR Period (2012‐2014)

Exhibit 8: UCMR 3 Annual National Cost and Burden (2012‐2014)

Exhibit 9: Number of Publicly‐ and Privately‐Owned Small Systems

Subject to UCMR 3

Exhibit 10: EPA and Systems Costs for Implementation of UCMR 3

at Small Systems

Exhibit 11: UCMR 3 Relative Cost Analysis for Small Publicly‐

Owned Systems (2012‐2016)

Exhibit 12: UCMR 3 Relative Cost Analysis for Small Privately‐

Owned Systems (2012‐2016)

II. Statutory Authority and Background

A. What is the statutory authority for UCMR?

Section 1445(a)(2) of SDWA, as amended in 1996, requires that once

every five years, the United States Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) issue a new list of no more than 30 unregulated contaminants to

be monitored by public water systems (PWSs). It also requires that EPA

enter the monitoring data into the Agency's National Drinking Water

Contaminant Occurrence Database (NCOD). EPA must ensure that only a

nationally representative sample of PWSs serving 10,000 or fewer people

is required to monitor. EPA must also vary the frequency and schedule

for monitoring based on the number of persons served, the source of

supply, and the contaminants likely to be found.

Section 1445(a)(1)(A) of SDWA, as amended in 1996, requires that

every person who is subject to any SDWA requirements establish and

maintain such records, make such reports, conduct such monitoring, and

provide such information as the Administrator may reasonably require by

regulation to assist the Administrator in establishing SDWA

regulations. Pursuant to this authority, EPA is requiring the

monitoring of total chromium under this final rule.

B. How does EPA meet these statutory requirements?

This final rule fulfills EPA's obligation under SDWA by identifying

29 unregulated contaminants for monitoring during the third UCMR,

referred to as ``UCMR 3.'' These contaminants include: 27 chemicals

measured using up to seven analytical methods and/or four equivalent

consensus organization‐developed methods, and two viruses measured

using one sample collection and two detection methods. In conjunction

with UCMR 3 Assessment Monitoring, monitoring for total chromium is

also required. Total chromium monitoring is required under the

authority provided in Section 1445(a)(1)(A) of SDWA. EPA has developed

the contaminant list (Exhibit 2a and 2b) and sampling design for UCMR 3

(2012‐2016) with input from both stakeholders and an EPA‐State working

group.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Exhibit 2a‐‐UCMR 3 Final Contaminant Lists

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

List 1, Assessment Monitoring

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

1,4‐dioxane............................ vanadium.

molybdenum............................. strontium.

cobalt................................. chromium‐6 (hexavalent

chromium)\1\.

[[Page 26075]]

1,2,3‐trichloropropane................. chlorate.

1,3‐butadiene.......................... perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

(PFOS).

chloromethane (methyl chloride)........ perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA).

1,1‐dichloroethane..................... perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA).

bromochloromethane (Halon 1011)........ perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

(PFHxS).

bromomethane (methyl bromide).......... perfluoroheptanoic acid

(PFHpA).

chlorodifluoromethane (HCFC‐22)........ perfluorobutanesulfonic acid

(PFBS).

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

List 2, Screening Survey

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

17‐[beta]‐estradiol.................... estriol.

17‐[alpha]‐ethynylestradiol (ethinyl equilin.

estradiol).

estrone................................ testosterone.

4‐androstene‐3,17‐dione. ...............................

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

List 3, Pre‐Screen Testing \2\

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

enteroviruses.......................... noroviruses.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Exhibit 2b‐‐Total Chromium Monitoring \3\

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

total chromium

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

\1\ Chromium‐6 will be measured as soluble chromate (ion).

\2\ Monitoring for microbial indicators‐‐in conjunction with UCMR 3 Pre‐

Screen Testing‐‐is also required. This monitoring includes sampling

for pathogen indicators (i.e., total coliforms, E. coli,

bacteriophage, Enterococci and aerobic spores). It is not subject to

the stipulation in Section 1445(a)(2)(B)(i) of SDWA that restricts

UCMR contaminants to not more than 30. List 3 monitoring, including

monitoring of microbial indicators, is only required at selected small

systems. EPA will collect the samples from List 3 sampling locations,

and will pay for all sampling and analysis costs associated with virus

and indicator monitoring at these small systems.

\3\ Monitoring for total chromium‐‐in conjunction with UCMR 3 Assessment

Monitoring‐‐is required under the authority provided in Section

1445(a)(1)(A) of SDWA.

This list differs from that provided in the March 3, 2011, proposed

rule (76 FR 11713, (USEPA, 2011a)) as follows: chromium‐6 (hexavalent

chromium) and total chromium have been added; sec‐butylbenzene and n‐

propylbenzene have been deleted; and monitoring of hormones was moved

from Assessment Monitoring (List 1) to Screening Survey (List 2).

III. Summary of This Rule

Public water systems (PWS) or EPA will conduct sampling and

analysis for Assessment Monitoring (List 1), Screening Survey (List 2),

and Pre‐Screen Testing (List 3) contaminants, as applicable, at each

PWS subject to this rule during a 12 month period within the 2013 to

2015 time frame. Preparations prior to 2013 include coordination of

laboratory approval, selection of representative samples of small

systems, development of State Monitoring Plans, establishment of

monitoring schedules, and notification of participating PWSs. Exhibit 3

illustrates the major activities that will take place during

implementation of UCMR 3.

[[Page 26076]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02MY12.000

EPA generally divides unregulated contaminant monitoring into three

types of monitoring, or ``lists.'' ``Assessment Monitoring'' is the

largest in scope of the three UCMR monitoring lists or tiers. Under

UCMR 3 Assessment Monitoring, 20 ``List 1'' contaminants will be

monitored to assess national occurrence in drinking water; total

chromium will be monitored in conjunction with Assessment Monitoring.

These are the contaminants for which analytical method technologies are

well established.

The second tier of UCMR is referred to as ``List 2'' or ``Screening

Survey'' monitoring. List 2 contaminants are those with analytical

methods that have generally been more recently developed and employ

technologies that are not as widely used or laboratory capacity may be

insufficient to conduct the larger scale Assessment Monitoring. Under

the UCMR 3 Screening Survey, seven ``List 2'' contaminants will be

monitored by certain systems (see Exhibit 3).

``Pre‐Screen Testing,'' the third tier of UCMR monitoring is

generally designed for ``List 3'' contaminants with very new or

specialized analytical methods. Under UCMR 3, a selected set of 800

systems that serve fewer than 1,000 retail customers and that do not

disinfect are required to assist EPA in sampling their system for two

viruses on ``List 3'' and the associated pathogen indicators (i.e.,

total coliforms, E. coli, bacteriophage, Enterococci and aerobic

spores). This requirement includes community and non‐transient, non‐

community water systems and transient systems.

EPA will pay for the sample kit preparation, sample shipping fees,

and analysis costs to minimize the impact of the rule on small systems

(those serving 10,000 or fewer people). In addition, no small system

will be required to monitor for more than one ``List'' of contaminants.

Large systems (those serving more than 10,000 people) will pay for the

cost of shipping and laboratory testing for their List 1 and, as

applicable, List 2 analyses.

The data collected through the UCMR program are being stored in

NCOD to facilitate analysis and review of contaminant occurrence, guide

the conduct of the Contaminant Candidate List (CCL) process and support

the Administrator in making regulatory decisions for contaminants in

the interest of protecting public health, as required under SDWA

Section 1412(b)(1). Results of UCMR 1 and 2 monitoring can be viewed by

the public at EPA's UCMR Web site: http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/ucmr/data.cfm.

[[Page 26077]]

A. What are the major changes between the proposed and final UCMR 3

rule?

EPA published ``Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring

Regulation (UCMR 3) for Public Water Systems;'' Proposed Rule, on March

3, 2011 (76 FR 11713, (USEPA, 2011a)). EPA received input from 53

public commenters. After considering the comments, EPA added chromium‐6

to the list of unregulated contaminants to be monitored; removed sec‐

butylbenzene and n‐propylbenzene; and moved monitoring of hormones from

Assessment Monitoring to the Screening Survey. EPA is also requiring

PWSs to monitor for total chromium concurrent with all chromium‐6

monitoring. EPA revised or clarified requirements pertaining to UCMR

applicability criteria, reporting, monitoring and quality control.

Exhibit 4 provides a summary of these changes and a listing of the
corresponding preamble section that provides a more detailed discussion

of the revisions and related public comments. Sections III.B‐G

summarize the different aspects of this rule and the associated major

comments received in response to the proposed rule. EPA has compiled a

more detailed document containing all public comments and EPA's

responses entitled: ``Response to Comments Document for the Unregulated

Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (UCMR 3),'' (USEPA, 2012b), which can

be obtained by going to http://www.regulations.gov, and searching for

Docket ID No. EPA‐HQ‐OW‐2009‐0090.

Exhibit 4‐‐Changes to UCMR 3 between Proposed and Final Rule

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Rule section

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Description of change Corresponding preamble

Number Title/description section

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

141.35(c)(1) and (d)(1).............. Data elements.......... Revise zip code III.G.2 Sample location

reporting to include and inventory

only the zip codes for information (zip

all customers served, codes).

rather than those

associated with each

sampling point.

141.35(c)(6)(ii) and 141.40(a)(5)(vi) Reporting schedule..... Change laboratory III.G.4 Reporting

reporting time to 120 schedule.

days, rather than 60

days; change PWS

reporting time to 60

days after laboratory

posting, rather than

30 days.

141.40(a)(2)(i)(A) and (a)(2)(ii)(A); Analytes to be Add chromium‐6; remove III.D.4 Chromium‐6 and

and 141.40(a)(3) Table 1. monitored and related requirement to monitor total chromium, and

specifications. for sec‐butylbenzene related methods.

and n‐propylbenzene; III.D.1 List

require total chromium compilation.

monitoring under SDWA III.D.2 Hormones and

Section 1445 related methods.

(a)(1)(A); move

hormone monitoring to

Screening Survey.

141.35(c)(2)......................... Sample location and Large systems must III.G.4 Reporting

inventory information. provide sample schedule.

location and inventory

information to EPA by

October 1, 2012.

141.40(a)(3) Table 1, footnote c and Distribution system Revise definition of III.C Where are samples

141.40 (a)(4)(i)(C). maximum residence time DSMRT sample required collected?

(DSMRT) sample for specific List 1 III.D.3 Metals,

location. contaminants. chlorate, and related

methods.

141.35(c)(5)(i) and 141.40 (a)(4)(i). General rescheduling Large systems may III.G.4 Reporting

notification. independently change schedule.

List 1 or List 2

monitoring schedule by

October 1, 2012.

141.35(c)(3)......................... Ground water Large systems may III.C Where are samples

representative submit representative collected?

sampling locations. sampling plan III.G.4 Reporting

proposals or changes schedule.

to existing plans by

August 1, 2012.

141.40(a)(3) Table 1 footnote c...... Representative intake.. Systems that purchase III.C Where are samples

water from the same collected?

wholesaler may sample

from a representative

intake.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

B. Which Water Systems Must Monitor

1. Applicability Based on Population Served

a. This Rule

This rule requires that Assessment Monitoring (for List 1

contaminants) be conducted by all large community and non‐transient

non‐community water systems serving more than 10,000 people, and a

nationally representative sample of 800 small water systems serving

10,000 or fewer people; and that the Screening Survey (for List 2

contaminants) be conducted by all large community and non‐transient

non‐community water systems serving more than 100,000 people, a

nationally representative sample of 320 large systems serving 10,001 to

100,000 people, and a nationally representative sample of 480 small

water systems serving 10,000 or fewer people (as indicated by Federal

Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS/Fed) on December 31,

2010). Transient non‐community water systems are excluded from

Assessment Monitoring and the Screening Survey. In contrast to

implementation of UCMR 1 and 2 monitoring, those systems that purchase

all of their finished water from another system are not excluded from

the requirements of UCMR 3.

[[Page 26078]]

b. Summary of Major Comments

EPA received six (6) comments concerning UCMR monitoring based on

retail population served. The commenters all agreed that applicability

should be based on retail population, although some wanted to exclude

those who purchase their water from that applicability. In UCMR 1 and
2, systems that purchased 100% of their water were excluded from

monitoring, making estimates of exposure more difficult because many of

these purchasing systems represented high‐population areas. For UCMR 3,

systems that purchase 100% of their water and serve greater than 10,000

people are subject to this rule. Wholesalers that serve a retail

population of 10,000 or fewer customers are only required to monitor if

they are selected as part of the nationally representative sample of

small systems for any list of UCMR contaminants. This should greatly

improve exposure estimates for UCMR 3 since exposure estimates will be

based on the monitoring data collected from where the water is consumed

rather than where it is sold. Between the wholesaler and the purchasing

system, contaminant levels may increase (e.g., DBPs or metals) or

decrease (e.g., through blending various sources or degradation/

chemical reactions).

Some commenters also expressed concern that this applicability

change could add an estimated 1,250 systems to the list of those that

need to monitor and suggested that this would represent a substantial

increase in burden to the drinking water industry. To help mitigate the

burden, EPA is allowing those systems that purchase water with multiple

connections from the same wholesaler to select a representative

connection for sampling. See Section III.C.1.a for further discussion.

In addition, EPA notes that approximately 450 wholesale systems will no

longer be subject to monitoring; the net increase is approximately 800

systems.

2. Applicability for Transient Systems

a. This Rule

Under UCMR 1 and 2, transient non‐community water systems were

specifically exempted from monitoring. UCMR 3 now requires

participation by transient systems that are selected for Pre‐Screen

Testing for List 3 contaminants. Under UCMR 3, EPA is conducting Pre‐

Screen Testing for enterovirus and norovirus, as well as related

pathogen indicators, at selected undisinfected ground water systems

that serve 1,000 or fewer customers. EPA is including transient systems

among the candidate systems‐‐and focusing on viruses at those systems‐‐

since viruses are acute pathogens and exposure through a one‐time

ingestion (e.g., at a transient system) is of potential health concern.

Under 141.40(a)(1) and 141.40(a)(2)(ii)(C), if any system

(including transient systems) is notified by EPA or its State that it

has been selected for Pre‐Screen Testing, the system must permit EPA

(at EPA's expense) to sample and analyze for List 3 contaminants and

pathogen indicators (i.e., total coliforms, E. coli, bacteriophage,

Enterococci and aerobic spores).

b. Summary of Major Comments

EPA received two (2) comments on including transient non‐community

systems for List 3 monitoring. One fully supported their inclusion, and

the other expressed concern that EPA would not be able to adequately

fund the collection and processing of these samples. EPA is confident

that it has budgeted sufficient funds to support these activities. As

the second commenter noted, transient systems represent a substantial

number of the systems serving less than 1,000 customers; therefore, the

sampling of these potentially vulnerable systems for these acute

pathogens is considered important.

C. Where are samples collected?

1. Entry Point to the Distribution System

a. This Rule

As was the case under UCMR 2, UCMR 3 samples will be collected at

entry points to the distribution system (EPTDS). PWSs may perform

sampling at representative sampling locations in two cases:

Demonstrating Representative Ground Water Sampling

Locations: Under this rule, large systems that use ground water sources

and have multiple EPTDSs can, with prior approval, conduct monitoring

at representative sampling locations rather than at each EPTDS. To

monitor at representative EPTDSs, large systems must meet the criteria

specified in Sec. 141.35(c)(3) and receive approval from EPA or the

State. Changes to the rule language clarify that when identifying a

representative well, the well must be representative of the highest

producing (based on annual volume) and most consistently active wells.

In addition, the representative well must be in use at the scheduled

sampling time. An alternative location must be sampled if the

representative EPTDS is not available at the time of scheduled

sampling. This rule establishes a deadline of August 1, 2012 for

submission of new proposals or updates to existing plans. See Section

III.G.4 for further discussion.

Representative Intakes from Wholesaler: As specified in

Sec. 141.40(a)(3) Table 1, footnote c, systems that purchase water

with multiple connections from the same wholesaler may select one

representative connection from that wholesaler for UCMR sampling. If a

PWS chooses to select a representative intake, each representative

intake must receive water from the same source. Additionally, if a PWS

chooses to select a representative intake, it must choose a sampling

location that represents the highest volume EPTDS connection and is in

use at the time of scheduled sampling. If the connection initially

selected as the representative EPTDS is not available at the time of

scheduled sampling, an alternate representative connection must be

sampled.

b. Summary of Major Comments

Five (5) commenters expressed support for EPA's proposal regarding

representative sampling points, and representative intakes for PWSs

with multiple connections from the same wholesaler; commenters cited

cost savings as a benefit of this approach. One commenter also

suggested that EPA's approach to representative sampling locations

should provide additional flexibility in cases where multiple water

systems are receiving water from the same wholesale provider. EPA

acknowledges that there are many unique situations with the purchase

and sale of drinking water at the wholesale level. In this final rule,
EPA has provided clarifying language in Sec. 141.40(a)(3) Table 1,

footnote c, specifying that a PWS may select a representative intake

from a given wholesaler. EPA is available to advise PWSs regarding

choosing the most appropriate sampling site, based on their purchasing

situation. However, EPA is requiring all systems that purchase 100% of

their water to monitor, for the reasons described in Section III.B.1 of

this preamble. Based on the experience of UCMR 1 and UCMR 2, EPA

believes it is more appropriate to measure at each purchasing system to

more accurately assess exposure. This approach relies on each

purchasing system to monitor, thus ensuring the monitoring results

reflect any potential water quality changes between the wholesaler and

each purchasing system.

[[Page 26079]]

2. Distribution System Maximum Residence Time Location

a. This Rule

This rule requires systems that participate in Assessment

Monitoring to also sample for total chromium, chromium‐6, cobalt,

molybdenum, strontium, vanadium, and chlorate both at EPTDSs and in the

distribution system. This rule requires systems to collect the samples

for these analytes at their distribution system maximum residence time

(DSMRT) location(s), (Sec. Sec. 141.40(a)(3) Table 1, footnote c and

141.40(a)(4)(i)(C)). For clarity, EPA deleted the UCMR reference to the

DSMRT specifications under the Stage 1 Disinfection Byproducts Rule at

Sec. 141.132(b)(1)(i). EPA now defines DSMRT under UCMR as an active

point (i.e., a location that currently provides water to customers) in

the distribution system where the water has been in the system the

longest relative to the EPTDS. Systems that are subject to the Stage 2

Disinfection By‐Products Rule should use their total trihalomethanes

(TTHM) highest concentration sampling site(s) as their DSMRT sampling

site(s) (USEPA, 2003).

b. Summary of Major Comments

As described in greater detail in Section III.D.3., ``Metals,

chlorate, and related methods,'' several commenters suggested that EPA

had provided insufficient rationale for requiring DSMRT sampling for

cobalt, molybdenum, strontium, vanadium, and chlorate. As elements that

may occur in water both naturally, or through industrial activities,

cobalt, molybdenum, strontium, and vanadium are expected to be commonly

detected in drinking water. EPA believes these metals may be

incorporated into pipe deposits and subsequent erosion and/or

dissolution may result in waterborne concentrations that differ between

the DSMRT and the EPTDS. Regarding chlorate, the use of disinfectants,

including use of hypochlorite, chloramines, chlorine dioxide, and ozone

can result in chlorate formation. The presence of residual disinfectant

in the distribution system and chlorine boosters within the

distribution system may result in increases in chlorate concentrations

at the DSMRT relative to the EPTDS.

D. What are the UCMR 3 contaminants and associated methods?

1. List Compilation

a. This Rule

EPA is maintaining the list of unregulated contaminants and methods

proposed for monitoring with the exception of adding chromium‐6, and

removing sec‐butylbenzene and n‐propylbenzene (see Exhibit 5a). EPA is

also requiring PWSs to monitor for total chromium concurrent with all

chromium‐6 monitoring (Exhibit 5b). The additional data generated by

side‐by‐side measurements of chromium‐6 and total chromium will provide

valuable information on relative occurrence and the utility of

monitoring for total chromium as a surrogate for chromium‐6.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Exhibit 5a: 29 Unregulated Analytes and Associated Methods

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Assessment Monitoring

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

7 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) using EPA Method 524.3 (GC/MS): \1\

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

1,2,3‐trichloropropane................. bromomethane (methyl bromide).

1,3‐butadiene.......................... bromochloromethane (Halon

1011).

chloromethane (methyl chloride)........ chlorodifluoromethane (HCFC‐

22).

1,1‐dichloroethane. ...............................

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Synthetic Organic Compound using EPA Method 522 (GC/MS): \2\

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

1,4‐dioxane.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

4 Metals using EPA Method 200.8 (ICP/MS) \3\ or alternate SM \4\ or ASTM

Methods: \5\

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

cobalt................................. strontium.

molybdenum............................. vanadium.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Oxyhalide Anion using EPA Method 300.1 (IC/Conductivity) \6\ or

alternate SM \7\ or ASTM Methods: \8\

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

chlorate.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

6 Perfluorinated Chemicals using EPA Method 537 (LC/MS/MS): \9\

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS).... perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

(PFHxS).
perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA).......... perfluoroheptanoic acid

(PFHpA).

perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA).......... perfluorobutanesulfonic acid

(PFBS).

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Chromium‐6 using EPA Method 218.7 (IC/UV‐VIS): \10\

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

chromium‐6.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Screening Survey

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

7 Hormones using EPA Method 539 (LC/MS/MS): \11\

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

17‐[beta]‐estradiol.................... estrone.

17‐[alpha]‐ethynylestradiol (ethinyl testosterone.

estradiol).

estriol (16‐[alpha]‐hydroxy‐17‐[beta]‐ 4‐androstene‐3,17‐dione.

estradiol).

equilin. ...............................

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

[[Page 26080]]

Pre‐Screen Testing

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

2 Viruses (see Section III.D.5 for methods discussion): \12\

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

enterovirus............................ norovirus.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Exhibit 5b‐‐Total Chromium Monitoring

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Total Chromium using EPA Method 200.8 (ICP/MS) \4\ or alternate SM \5\

or ASTM Methods: \6\

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

total chromium.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

\1\ EPA Method 524.3 (GC/MS) (USEPA, 2009a).

\2\ EPA Method 522 (GC/MS) (USEPA, 2008).

\3\ EPA Method 200.8 (ICP/MS) (USEPA, 1994).

\4\ SM 3125 (SM, 21st Ed., 2005).

\5\ ASTM D5673‐10 (ASTM, 2010).

\6\ EPA Method 300.1 (IC/Conductivity) (USEPA, 1997).

\7\ SM 4110D (SM, 21st Ed., 2005).

\8\ ASTM D6581‐08 (ASTM, 2008).

\9\ EPA Method 537 (LC/MS/MS) (USEPA, 2009b).

\10\ EPA Method 218.7 (IC/UV‐VIS) (USEPA, 2011b).

\11\ EPA Method 539 (LC/MS/MS) (USEPA, 2010e).

\12\ Monitoring also includes sampling for pathogen indicators (i.e.,

total coliforms, E. coli, bacteriophage, Enterococci and aerobic

spores). EPA will pay for all sampling and analysis costs associated

with monitoring at these small systems.

b. Summary of Major Comments

Commenters who expressed an opinion about the proposed UCMR 3

analytes were generally supportive. Several commenters suggested that

cyanobacterial toxins be added to the list of analytes. EPA agrees that

cyanobacterial toxins are of significant interest for future drinking

water monitoring. However, EPA currently does not have an available

drinking water method for analysis of cyanobacterial toxins. While

enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) and high‐performance liquid

chromatography with UV detection (HPLC/UV) methods have been published

(Howard and Boyer, 2007), they do not provide the level of specificity

needed for UCMR monitoring. The high‐performance liquid chromatography/

tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC/MS/MS) methods for cyanobacterial toxins

that have been published (Oehrle et al., 2010), do not provide suitable

accuracy and precision. EPA has conducted and will continue to conduct

methods development research for cyanobacterial toxins both in‐house

and in cooperation with other laboratories.

2. Hormones and Related Methods

a. This Rule

EPA is revising the requirement for monitoring of the hormones (17‐

[beta]‐estradiol; 17‐[alpha]‐ethynylestradiol; estriol; equilin;

estrone; testosterone; and, 4‐androstene‐3,17‐dione), by moving the

monitoring from Assessment Monitoring to the Screening Survey.

b. Summary of Major Comments

Three major issues concerning the hormones were raised by

commenters. The first was a concern that other than 17‐[alpha]‐

ethynylestradiol, the hormones all occur naturally. Based on the low

minimum reporting levels (MRLs) specified in this rule, these

commenters were concerned that there may be issues with false positives

due to background levels of these compounds from samplers.

The ranges of blank results observed during the determination of

MRLs are contained in Exhibit 6. In all cases the laboratories easily

met the requirement that the concentration of the analytes observed in

the blank must be less than one‐third of the MRL. In the ``worst case''

the observed blank level equaled one‐eighth the MRL. EPA is requiring

the collection of field blank samples for UCMR 3 and, to minimize the

potential issue of field blank and sample contamination, will provide

instructions to both the samplers and the laboratory personnel to wear

nitrile gloves when collecting or handling samples for the hormones.

These details are specified in EPA's technical manual titled: ``UCMR 3

Laboratory Approval Requirements and Information Document'' (USEPA,

2012d).

Exhibit 6‐‐Observed Background Levels During MRL Determination

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Laboratory 1 Laboratory 2 Laboratory 3

Analyte UCMR MRL ([mu]g/L) ([mu]g/L) ([mu]g/L) ([mu]g/L)

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

17‐[beta]‐estradiol.............. 0.0004.............. ND‐‐0.00006 ND ND‐‐0.00005

17‐[alpha]‐ethynylestradiol...... 0.0009.............. ND‐‐0.00007 ND‐‐0.00008 ND‐‐0.0002

estriol.......................... 0.0008.............. ND‐‐0.00007 ND ND‐‐0.00006

equilin.......................... 0.004............... ND‐‐0.00002 ND ND‐‐0.0005

estrone.......................... 0.002............... ND‐‐0.0001 0.00001‐‐0.00003 0.02‐‐0.0002

testosterone..................... 0.0001.............. ND ND ND‐‐0.00001

4‐androstene‐3,17‐dione.......... 0.0003.............. ND ND ND‐‐0.000008

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

ND = Not Detected.

EPA also stipulated in the rule that it will evaluate the situation

after six months of monitoring. If at that time, the data indicate that

excessive resampling is occurring, EPA will establish alternative MRLs

and will notify all affected PWSs and laboratories.

The second issue concerned whether all of the proposed hormones

should be monitored (versus a subset of them). There was no consensus

among the commenters as to what the ``subset'' should be. Some

commenters suggested that monitoring be limited to the five (5)

[[Page 26081]]

proposed hormones that are also listed on the final CCL 3 (17‐[beta]‐

estradiol, 17‐[alpha]‐ethynylestradiol, estriol, equilin and estrone).

EPA believes that monitoring for testosterone and 4‐androstene‐3,17‐

dione is also justified. A number of articles have been published that

show the occurrence of testosterone and 4‐androstene‐3,17‐dione in

surface waters:

National Surface Water Reconnaissance (1999‐2000): detects

of testosterone in 2 (2.8%) of 70 samples at a median concentration of

0.116 [mu]g/L and a maximum concentration of 0.214 [mu]g/L (Kolpin et

al., 2002).

California, Rivers, Irrigation Canals, and Tile Drains

(2003‐2005): detects of testosterone in 2 (18%) of 11 river samples at

a maximum concentration of 0.0006 [mu]g/L; detects in 4 (27%) of 15

irrigation canal samples at a maximum concentration of 0.0019 [mu]g/L;

detects in 2 (33%) of 6 tile drain samples at a maximum concentration

of <0.0003 [mu]g/L (Kolodziej et al., 2004).

California Surface Waters (2005‐2006): detects of 4‐

androstene‐3,17‐dione in 16 (18%) of 89 grazing rangeland surface water

samples at a maximum concentration of 0.044 [mu]g/L (Kolodziej and

Sedlak, 2007).

In addition, testosterone and 4‐androstene‐3,17‐dione have been

shown to be relatively resistant to oxidation (Mash et al., 2010).

The third issue concerned the potential for insufficient laboratory

capacity for the monitoring of hormones. Since EPA has moved the

hormone monitoring requirement from Assessment Monitoring (List 1) to

Screening Survey (List 2), this will substantially reduce the number of

PWSs required to monitor for hormones and mitigate any concerns

regarding laboratory capacity.

3. Metals, Chlorate, and Related Methods

a. This Rule

This rule requires that samples for the metals‐‐chromium‐6, total

chromium, cobalt, molybdenum, strontium, and vanadium‐‐as well as

chlorate, be collected at one distribution system sampling point per

treatment plant (i.e., at the DSMRT) in addition to sampling at the

EPTDS. DSMRT samples must be collected at a location that represents

the maximum residence time in the distribution system (Sec. Sec.

141.40(a)(3) Table 1, footnote c and 141.40(a)(4)(i)(C)). (As noted in

Section III.C.2.a of this preamble, EPA clarified the DSMRT

specifications and deleted the direct DSMRT reference under the Stage 1

Disinfection Byproducts Rule at Sec. 141.132(b)(1)(i).)

EPA is requiring that chlorate samples be collected at both the

EPTDS and DSMRT locations to permit the agency to evaluate if chlorate

occurs as an oxyhalide disinfection by‐product.

b. Summary of Major Comments

Eight (8) commenters suggested that further justification was

needed to support monitoring cobalt, molybdenum, strontium, and

vanadium at the DSMRT. Three commenters also made similar comments

regarding chlorate. Research indicates that vanadium can become

incorporated in the corrosion products in iron pipes used for drinking

water distribution. As a result, vanadium may be released via

dissolution and/or erosion of the mineral deposits that form inside

many iron distribution pipes. Gerke et al., (2010) cite research that

indicates that relatively minor scouring of these deposits can result

in water concentrations of vanadium in excess of 15 [mu]g/L. Similar

findings were published by the Water Research Foundation (Friedman et

al., 2009). The authors reported vanadium in scaling from several

different distribution systems. As a reference point, the Agency for

Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) has established an

Interim Minimal Risk Level of 0.003 mg/kg/day; a 70 kg adult drinking

two liters of water per day would exceed the RfD through water

consumption alone if the concentration in the water was greater than 21

[mu]g/L (ATSDR, 2009).

Molybdenum has been identified as being among the heavy metals that

can be mobilized from reservoir sediments containing iron and aluminum

oxides and hydroxides. Fluctuations in pH of approximately 0.2 pH units

were sufficient to considerably affect the release of previously

adsorbed molybdenum (Friedman et al., 2009).

Although such findings for cobalt and strontium are not available

in the scientific literature, these two elements commonly occur in

drinking water. As a result, EPA believes that incorporation of cobalt

and/or strontium into pipe deposits within a distribution system could

result in mobilization of these metals into drinking water within the

distribution system via dissolution and/or erosion. Strontium has been
found in greatest amounts in calcium‐rich minerals and sediments due to

similarities in atomic radii (Fairbridge, 1972). In addition, Friedman

et al., (2009) report calcium to be the fourth most concentrated

element found in pipe deposit samples. Thus, erosion and/or dissolution

of pipe deposits within the distribution system may affect human

exposure levels for cobalt, molybdenum, strontium, and vanadium.

The presence of residual disinfectant in the distribution system

may result in increases in chlorate concentrations at the DSMRT

relative to the EPTDS. The following studies on chlorate formation have

linked its presence in treated drinking water to the use of several

disinfection processes:

The generation of chlorine dioxide from chlorite and free

chlorine (Gordon et al., 1990; Bolyard et al., 1993; Gallagher et al.,

1994);

The generation of chlorine dioxide from chlorite and

hypochlorite (Gallagher et al., 1994);

Chlorine dioxide oxidation by residual free chlorine

(Gordon and Tachiyashiki, 1991; Bolyard et al., 1993);

Transition metal‐catalyzed free chlorine decomposition

during disinfection (Gordon et al., 1995);

Base‐catalyzed disproportionation of chlorine dioxide

(USEPA, 1999a; Gallagher et al., 1994);

Photodecomposition of chlorine dioxide (Rice and Gomez‐

Taylor, 1986; Bolyard et al., 1993; Gallagher et al., 1994; Bergmann

and Koparal, 2005);

Use of chlorate‐contaminated hypochlorite solutions‐‐

chlorate can come from either the impurity of the original stock

solution or decomposition during storage (Bolyard et al., 1992; Bolyard

et al., 1993; Gordon et al., 1993; Gordon et al., 1995; Gordon et al.,

1997; USEPA, 1999a; WHO, 2005; Snyder et al., 2009; Stanford et al.,

2011);

Use of ozone with residual chlorine (Siddiqui, 1996; von

Gunten, 2003); and

Use of electrochemical disinfection processes (Czarnetzki

and Janssen, 1992; Bergmann and Koparal, 2005).

4. Chromium‐6 and Total Chromium, and Related Methods

a. This Rule

While EPA did not include chromium‐6 in the proposed list of

chemicals for UCMR 3 monitoring, EPA did request comment on whether the

agency should include it in the final rule due to the concerns about

its potential occurrence in public water supplies. EPA also requested

comments on whether total chromium should be measured concurrent with

chromium‐6. Commenters strongly supported requiring monitoring for both

chromium‐6 and total chromium.

EPA agrees with these commenters and has added chromium‐6 to the

list of unregulated contaminants to be monitored. EPA is also requiring

PWSs to monitor for total chromium concurrent with all chromium‐6

[[Page 26082]]

monitoring. EPA completed the development and validation of a revised

analytical method for the determination of chromium‐6 in drinking

water, EPA Method 218.7: Determination of Hexavalent Chromium in

Drinking Water by Ion Chromatography with Post‐Column Derivatization

and UV‐Visible Spectroscopic Detection. This revised method has been

extensively studied both within EPA and ion chromatography

manufacturers' laboratories as well as through external laboratory

validation (USEPA, 2011b).

EPA is using the authority provided in SDWA Section 1445(a)(1)(A)

to require monitoring for total chromium in conjunction with the UCMR 3

monitoring of chromium‐6. EPA has removed sec‐butylbenzene and n‐

propylbenzene from UCMR 3. More specifically, the agency has removed

sec‐butylbenzene and n‐propylbenzene from the UCMR 3 Assessment

Monitoring list.

b. Summary of Major Comments

EPA received 30 comments regarding the inclusion of chromium‐6 in

UCMR 3. Twenty‐eight of the 30 commenters supported inclusion. The

other two suggested that a health risk from drinking water exposure had

not been conclusively established, that regional levels of total

chromium in drinking water are very low and that speciation would not

be beneficial. The agency believes that the ongoing studies of

chromium‐6 toxicity warrant UCMR monitoring at this time. EPA believes

that collecting national occurrence data will provide beneficial

information to the agency regarding how best to protect human health.

EPA's second Six‐Year Review of National Primary Drinking Water

Regulations (USEPA, 2010d) indicated that the levels of total chromium

warrant further investigation of chromium‐6 occurrence. Chromium can

enter the environment from both natural and industrial sources; thus

the distribution of both total chromium and chromium‐6 may vary based

on regional geology and regional industrial activity. Part of the goal

of UCMR is to assess the national distribution of the contaminants

selected.

Commenters who supported the inclusion of chromium‐6 cited two

primary reasons for its inclusion in UCMR 3:

Generating national occurrence data in UCMR 3 will avoid

potential delays in any possible regulatory action;

Monitoring for both total chromium and chromium‐6 may

allow for determining a relationship between the two species, allowing

for possible use of total chromium monitoring, which is less costly and

has better holding time requirements, as a surrogate for chromium‐6

monitoring.

While generally supporting chromium‐6 monitoring in UCMR 3, some

commenters expressed concern about the current analytical method. The

concerns included procedural issues (e.g., field filtration,

preservation and holding time compliance), interferences concerns

(e.g., sensitivity and species interconversion prior to sample

analysis), the need for round‐robin testing of the method laboratory
capacity, and the need to determine a lowest concentration minimum

reporting level (LCMRL) and MRL for chromium‐6. Extensive research by

EPA, with support from instrument manufacturers and commercial

laboratories, addressed the issues of interferences, sensitivity and

analyte preservation. EPA Method 218.7 has undergone peer review, and

multi‐laboratory LCMRL and MRL determinations have been completed

(USEPA, 2011b; USEPA, 2006).

Because UCMR is limited by statute to 30 unregulated contaminants,

commenters offered a variety of suggestions for which analyte to remove

to accommodate chromium‐6. Suggestions included dropping one of the

metals, hormones, PFCs, or VOCs. Other suggestions included removing

``the contaminant with the least chance of being detected during

monitoring.'' EPA selected sec‐butylbenzene and n‐propylbenzene, non‐

carcinogenic VOCs, for removal after considering data submitted by

States that indicated very low occurrence rates. EPA also considered

the fact that the currently available health reference levels, 10.3

[mu]g/L and 5.83 [mu]g/L, respectively, are well above the reported

levels of occurrence in these data (USEPA, 2012c).

5. Viruses and Related Methods

a. This Rule

EPA is finalizing the requirement for monitoring of the viruses as

proposed. This rule requires monitoring for enterovirus and norovirus

in UCMR 3 via Pre‐Screen Testing of selected undisinfected ground water

systems located in karst or fractured bedrock. The monitoring will

include 800 PWSs serving 1,000 or fewer customers, including CWSs, and

non‐transient and transient non‐community water systems. Monitoring

will also include sampling for pathogen indicators (i.e., total

coliforms, E. coli, bacteriophage, Enterococci and aerobic spores).

This monitoring will obtain information concerning the occurrence of

enterovirus and norovirus for further evaluation and provide EPA with a

better understanding of the co‐occurrence of pathogen indicators and

viruses.

Enteroviruses will be monitored using one method that has two

detection assays. The first is a cell culture assay also used in the

Information Collection Rule survey conducted by EPA (61 FR 24353, May

14, 1996 (USEPA, 1996)), with one change; the Virosorb 1‐MDS filter

will be replaced by the NanoCeram[supreg] filter, which will

significantly reduce sampling cost. The NanoCeram[supreg] filter has

proven to be as effective as Virosorb 1‐MDS filter for the recovery of

enteroviruses (Karim et al., 2009) and noroviruses (Gibbons et al.,

2010). The second assay is quantitative polymerase chain reaction

(qPCR) based, and detects the viral nucleic acid. Noroviruses will only

be monitored using qPCR, as there is no cell culture method available.

Both norovirus and enterovirus qPCR will be performed per the

protocol in Lambertini et al., (2008). The qPCR primers and probe for

genogroup I norovirus will be as referenced in Jothikumar et al.,

(2005), while genogroup II Norovirus primers and probe will be as

referenced in Ando et al., (1995). Primers and probe referenced in De

Leon et al., (1990) and Monpoeho et al., (2000) will be used for

enterovirus qPCR.

b. Summary of Major Comments

Several commenters expressed concern about using Method 1615 for

monitoring viruses because it has not undergone multi‐laboratory

validation. EPA notes, however, that individual elements of the method

have been used by many researchers worldwide, and the culture assay is,

with the exception of a new filter, identical to the Information

Collection Rule validated method (FR 24353, May 14, 1996 (USEPA,

1996)). The complete method is published and has undergone thorough

peer review as per protocols established by EPA's National Exposure

Research Laboratory and consistent with ``The Handbook for Preparing

ORD Reports'' (USEPA, 1995). The method has undergone validation at

EPA's laboratory, has built in quality controls for PCR inhibition and

has positive and negative controls to identify false negative and

positive assays. Results from the analysis of initial and ongoing

positive and negative proficiency testing (PT) samples will ensure the

ability of analysts to perform the method.

Several commenters questioned EPA's use of Borchardt's (2008) data

as the basis for including viruses in UCMR 3,

[[Page 26083]]

since that work has not been published or undergone peer review. In his

study, Borchardt sampled wells from 14 communities in Wisconsin for the

presence of enteroviruses and noroviruses. The initial enteric virus

RT‐qPCR assay results are published in a peer reviewed journal (Hunt et

al., 2010). Borchardt's work showed a statistically significant

correlation between viral qPCR and self‐reported AGI (acute

gastrointestinal illness) in the population served. Borchardt's work is

also one of the very few studies to assess presence of enteric viruses

in undisinfected ground water systems. EPA expects that complete

results from Borchardt's work will be published in a peer reviewed

journal in the near future. The study results have also been presented

at numerous scientific conferences as well as in testimony to the

Wisconsin State Senate. A project advisory committee comprised of

epidemiologists from the University of California, Berkeley, Michigan

State University and the University of Washington provided additional

peer review comments during the study planning and data analysis

stages.

A few commenters expressed concerns as to whether a survey of 800

undisinfected ground water systems in a sensitive hydrogeology would be

nationally representative, noting that only specific geologic regions

within the country would be included in the survey. While EPA

acknowledges that the 800 undisinfected ground water systems are only a

small subset of the total number of systems in the country, the

selection of 800 PWSs was statistically derived to be nationally

representative of those with sensitive hydrogeology.

EPA also received comments regarding how the agency would use data
obtained from a focused and limited occurrence survey, at highly

vulnerable and susceptible systems, to provide meaningful data to judge

nationwide occurrence and to support regulatory determination. EPA

notes that results will provide an understanding of the exposure risks

in populations potentially served by a large number of undisinfected

systems in karst aquifers nationally. Lastly, some comments addressed

the current information on virus‐indicator correlation, suggesting that

the correlations are weak. EPA notes that most virus‐indicator

correlation studies have been performed in disinfected systems, not

undisinfected ground water systems. EPA also notes that the use of

multiple indicators in looking at the correlation will make this

monitoring more useful.

6. Perfluorinated Compounds and Related Methods

a. This Rule

EPA is finalizing the requirement for monitoring the perfluorinated

compounds (PFCs) as proposed: PFOS, PFOA, PFNA, PFHxS, PFHpA, and PFBS.

b. Summary of Major Comments

EPA received public comments related to several issues with EPA

Method 537, used to measure PFCs. These included: The potential for

laboratory contamination; concerns that the MRLs developed for the PFCs

may be too low or too high; and concerns about the media used to

extract the contaminants. EPA successfully tested this method via a

multi‐laboratory validation and conducted a thorough peer‐review

process prior to the UCMR 3 proposal. Since then, the method has also

been effectively used at additional laboratories. Contamination was not

an issue at these laboratories, and they were able to meet the proposed

MRLs. While particular laboratories may be able to meet MRLs lower than

those proposed, the selected MRLs reflect those achievable by the

national array of laboratories that support the program. Regarding the

extraction media, the method relies on a very common sorbent (styrene

divinylbenzene) that is available from a number of vendors and yields

high‐quality data.

E. How are laboratories approved for UCMR 3 monitoring?

1. This Rule

All laboratories conducting analyses for UCMR 3 List 1 and List 2

contaminants must receive EPA approval to perform those analyses.

Laboratories seeking approval are required to provide EPA with data

that demonstrate their successful completion of an initial

demonstration of capability (IDC) as outlined in each method, verify

successful method performance at the MRLs as specified in this action,

and successfully participate in an EPA Proficiency Testing (PT) program

for the analytes of interest. On‐site audits of candidate laboratories

may be conducted. Details of the EPA laboratory approval program are

contained in the technical manual titled: ``UCMR 3 Laboratory Approval

Requirements and Information Document'' (USEPA, 2012d). This document

will be available on the electronic docket at www.regulations.gov and

will be provided to laboratories that register for the laboratory

approval program. In addition, EPA may supply analytical reference

standards of known concentrations for select analytes to participating/

approved laboratories, where such standards are not readily available

through commercial sources.

Pre‐Screen Testing (List 3) analyses for viruses and related

pathogen indicators (i.e., total coliforms, E. coli, bacteriophage,

Enterococci, and aerobic spores) are organized and paid for by EPA

through direct contracts with microbial laboratories. These

laboratories are not required to go through the same formal laboratory

approval process as the Assessment Monitoring and Screening Survey

laboratories; however, they are subject to an analogous laboratory

approval process as part of their direct contracts with EPA.

a. Laboratory Approval Process for UCMR 3

The UCMR 3 laboratory approval program is similar to the approval

program under UCMR 1 and 2. It is designed to assess and confirm the

capability of laboratories to perform analyses using the methods listed

in Sec. 141.40(a)(3), Table 1, of this final rule. It will assess

whether laboratories meet the required equipment, laboratory

performance and data reporting criteria described in this action. This

evaluation program is voluntary in that it only applies to laboratories

intending to analyze UCMR 3 samples. However, EPA requires water

systems to use UCMR 3 approved laboratories when conducting monitoring

for those analytes listed in Table 1 of Sec. 141.40(a)(3) of this

final rule. A list of laboratories approved for UCMR 3 monitoring is

posted to EPA's UCMR Web site: http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/ucmr/ucmr3/laboratories.cfm. Laboratories are encouraged to apply

for UCMR 3 approvals as early as possible, as schedules for large PWS

sampling will be completed soon after the final rule is promulgated.

The steps for the laboratory approval process are listed in the

following paragraphs, b through f.

b. Request To Participate

Laboratories must contact EPA and request to participate in the

UCMR 3 laboratory approval program. Laboratories must send their

request to: UCMR 3 Laboratory Approval Coordinator, USEPA, Technical

Support Center, 26 West Martin Luther King Drive (MS 140), Cincinnati,

OH 45268; or email at: UCMR_Sampling_Coordinator@epa.gov. EPA began

accepting requests for registration for the List 1 (Assessment

Monitoring) and List 2 (Screening Survey) methods on March 03, 2011.

[[Page 26084]]

The final opportunity for a laboratory to request the necessary

registration forms is August 1, 2012.

c. Registration

Each laboratory that wishes to participate in UCMR 3 monitoring

must complete a registration form. Registration information includes

the following: laboratory name, mailing address, shipping address,

contact name, phone number, email address and a list of the UCMR 3

methods for which the laboratory is seeking approval. The registration
step provides EPA with the necessary contact information and ensures

that each laboratory receives a customized application package of

materials and instructions for the methods that it plans to use.

d. Application Package

When EPA receives the registration information, a customized

application package will be emailed to the laboratory for completion.

Information requested in the application includes the following: IDC

data, including precision, accuracy and results of MRL studies;

information regarding analytical equipment; proof of current drinking

water laboratory certification (for any currently regulated chemical);

and example chromatograms for each method under review.

The laboratory must post UCMR 3 monitoring results (on behalf of

its PWS clients) to EPA's UCMR electronic data reporting system as a

condition of maintaining EPA approval.

e. EPA Review of Application Package

EPA will review the application package and, if necessary, request

follow‐up information. The laboratory must satisfactorily complete this

portion of the process before they can participate in the UCMR 3 PT

program.

f. Proficiency Testing (PT)

A PT sample is a synthetic sample containing a concentration of an

analyte that is known to EPA, but unknown to the laboratory being

tested. To complete the initial laboratory approval process, a

laboratory must meet specific acceptance criteria for the analysis of a

UCMR 3 PT sample(s) for each method for which the laboratory is seeking

approval. Initial laboratory approval is contingent upon successful

completion of a PT study. EPA will offer two to four opportunities for

a laboratory to successfully analyze UCMR 3 PT samples. Two of these

studies were conducted prior to the publication of this final rule and

at least one study will be conducted after publication of the final

rule. Under this approach laboratories could complete their portion of

the laboratory approval process prior to publication of this final

rule, and therefore receive their approval immediately following the

publication of this final rule. Alternatively, laboratories could wait

until this final rule is published before completing the required

laboratory approval analyses. A laboratory must pass one of the PT

studies for each analytical method for which they are requesting

approval. Laboratories applying for UCMR 3 approval and laboratories

conducting UCMR 3 analyses may be subject to on‐site laboratory audits.

No PT studies will be conducted after the start of monitoring; however,

laboratory audits will be ongoing throughout the entire monitoring

period of 2013‐2015. Continued laboratory approval is contingent upon

successful participation in any audits conducted by EPA.

g. Written EPA Approval

After laboratories successfully complete steps ``b'' through ``f''

of the laboratory approval process, EPA will send the laboratory a

letter listing the method(s) for which approval is granted.

2. Summary of Major Comments

Three (3) commenters suggested that EPA modify the requirements for

PT samples in UCMR 3 by including a round of PT samples during the UCMR

3 monitoring period in addition to the initial round of PT samples

conducted prior to monitoring. Instead of requiring laboratories to

conduct ongoing PT samples, EPA will conduct ongoing laboratory audits

similar to the process under UCMR 2. Ongoing laboratory audits will

allow EPA to evaluate each laboratory's analytical processes for all

aspects of sample receipt, storage, processing, analysis and reporting

of routine samples. This will provide a better mechanism, compared to

an additional PT study, for uncovering any potential data issues and

ensuring that laboratories meet the quality requirements.

F. How were minimum reporting levels determined?

1. This Rule

Lowest Concentration Minimum Reporting Levels (LCMRLs) and Minimum

Reporting Levels (MRLs) for each analyte were determined through an EPA

LCMRL study assessing the data from multiple laboratories prior to

publication of the UCMR 3 proposal. The LCMRL is defined as the lowest

spiking concentration at which recovery of between 50 and 150% is

expected 99% of the time by a single analyst.

The LCMRL is estimated using advanced statistical procedures that

have been incorporated into an LCMRL calculator tool that is available

on EPA's Web site (http://water.epa.gov/scitech/drinkingwater/labcert/analyticalmethods_ogwdw.cfm). The tool estimates a probability

distribution for spike recovery as a function of spiking concentration.

MRL

EPA revised the definition of the MRL used in UCMR 2 (72 FR 367,

January 4, 2007 (USEPA, 2007)). The revised definition reflects

improvements in the statistical procedures for determining the LCMRL

and MRL. These improvements were implemented by EPA to make the models

more robust, i.e., so that the models can accommodate a wider range of

observed LCMRL data sets (USEPA, 2010f). The MRL for an analyte

measured by a specified analytical method is designed to be an estimate

of an LCMRL that is achievable, with 95% confidence, by a capable

analyst/laboratory at least 75% of the time. Such a demonstration of

ability to reliably make quality measurements at the MRL is intended to

achieve high quality measurements across the nation's laboratories.

In UCMR 3, EPA estimated the MRL for an analyte/method by obtaining

data from several laboratories performing corresponding LCMRL studies.

These data were used to construct an approximation to the distribution

that would result from picking at random a laboratory/analyst

proficient in performing the analytical method and having them perform

an LCMRL study and compute an LCMRL estimate. The strategy for

computing the MRL is two‐fold. First, for each LCMRL data set, a

distribution for repeated LCMRL determinations by the same laboratory/

analyst is estimated by generating a large number of simulated values.

Second, these values are combined to create an estimated overall

distribution. If a result from one of the laboratories is significantly

higher than that of other laboratories, this value would be down‐
weighted using a robust weight function. The resulting weighted values

are used to construct a probability distribution from which the MRL is

computed as the 95th percentile.

2. Summary of Major Comments

Several commenters remarked on the complexity of the procedures for

determining the LCMRL and the MRL. These commenters were concerned

[[Page 26085]]

about the amount of time and effort needed to calculate LCMRLs and

MRLs. Some suggested that as an alternative, EPA use the procedure

developed for consideration by the Clean Water Act as part of the

Federal Advisory Committee on Detection and Quantitation. As a point of

clarification, EPA notes that laboratories that participate in UCMR 3

do not need to use the LCMRL and MRL procedures. Instead, laboratories

that participate in UCMR 3 will be required to demonstrate their

ability to meet the already‐established UCMR 3 analyte MRLs by

analyzing reagent water samples spiked at or below the established UCMR

3 MRLs. This initial demonstration of capability (IDC) requirement, as

described in EPA's ``UCMR 3 Laboratory Approval Requirements and

Information Document,'' is no more complex than determining a Method

Detection Limit (MDL) (USEPA, 2012d).

A diverse selection of laboratories representing different sizes,

experience and business status were selected to participate in the EPA

LCMRL studies (as described previously in this section). For

transparency, EPA will provide summary tables showing all LCMRL results

for UCMR 3 in the docket (USEPA, 2012d).

With regard to comments that the MRLs are being set well below

health reference levels (HRLs) in certain cases, EPA believes that this

is appropriate because new health effects data may become available in

the future that result in lower HRLs.

G. What are the UCMR 3 reporting requirements?

1. General Reporting Requirements/SDWARS

a. This Rule

Under this rule, EPA is committed to pre‐populating the inventory

and monitoring data in the reporting system (Safe Drinking Water

Accession and Review System (SDWARS)), using data from UCMR 2 and

SDWIS/Fed information. For PWSs subject to UCMR 3 that have data in

SDWARS from UCMR 2, EPA will transfer data to ``SDWARS 3'' (i.e., the

SDWARS update associated with UCMR 3). For water systems that are new

to UCMR, EPA will pull the available information from SDWIS/Fed and

coordinate with States and EPA Regions for their input where possible.

EPA has loaded the available information into SDWARS 3 prior to the

publication of this final rule. PWSs will have until October 1, 2012,

to update, edit, or change their information or monitoring schedule in

SDWARS 3 (see Section III.G.4 for further discussion of reporting

deadlines).

b. Summary of Major Comments

Several commenters expressed concern over possible inefficiencies

related to data entry into SDWARS, including concern over duplication

of past efforts (e.g., having to re‐enter information for each sample

point for each sampling event) and time spent identifying

representative sampling locations at both the EPTDS and DSMRT for UCMR

2. Commenters further noted it would be very helpful if elements that

are duplicated for each sample would be automatically pre‐filled in

each field once the information was entered the first time. As noted,

for UCMR 3, EPA plans to preload as much inventory to SDWARS as

possible and is taking commenter suggestions into consideration in its

design updates to SDWARS. The pre‐loaded data will include

representative sampling locations previously identified as the EPTDS

and DSMRT locations. PWSs will be asked to verify their inventory in

SDWARS and large systems may be required to revise this information

once their ground water representative monitoring plan has been

approved, depending on the level of their State's involvement. See

Section III.G.4 for discussion of reporting deadlines.

2. Sample Location and Inventory Information (Zip Codes)

a. This Rule

This final rule establishes a requirement for reporting zip codes

associated with all PWS customers. EPA had proposed the reporting of

sampling point U.S. Postal Service Zip Codes and the zip codes of all

customers served by a given sampling point (as part of the reporting

associated with Data Element 4‐‐Sampling Point Identification Code).

Obtaining the zip code of the sampling point was intended to assist

with future vulnerability assessments. Zip codes that tie populations

served to each sampling point were intended to assist with future

occurrence and exposure analyses. However, based on stakeholder

concerns about the burden associated with reporting this information

and concerns about the usefulness of having the zip code of the

sampling point, EPA revised the rule language to establish a

requirement of only reporting zip codes for customers served by the

PWS. These reporting specifications are now established in Sec. Sec.

141.35(c)(1) and (d)(1) for large and small systems, respectively. EPA

believes that required reporting of customer zip codes will provide EPA

with useful information for future occurrence analyses.

b. Summary of Major Comments

Eight (8) comments were received regarding the proposed zip code

reporting requirements. Most commenters believed that reporting the zip

code for each sampling point location would not provide EPA with the

information necessary to make future correlations between water quality

and the areas served by the water being distributed. After considering

public comments, EPA has revised the reporting requirement to only

include the zip codes served by the PWS.

3. Disinfectant Type Specifications

a. This Rule

EPA is changing Data Element 6, in Table 1 of 141.35(e). Under UCMR
2, this data element was established to provide information on

``Disinfectant Residual Type'' as it related to monitoring for

nitrosamines (part of UCMR 2 Screening Survey monitoring). EPA is

modifying the definition of this data element to account for changes to

the analyte and monitoring specifications between UCMR 2 and UCMR 3.

This revised definition lists additional disinfectant types to provide

more specific information on the sources and types of disinfectant

schemes that may lead to chlorate formation/occurrence in drinking

water.

b. Summary of Major Comments

While commenters were supportive of the collection of these data,

several commenters noted that the requirement for reporting this data

element was unclear. Some commenters noted that PWSs frequently use

multiple disinfectants and reporting only one of those would provide an

inaccurate assessment of disinfectants being used. Others noted that

EPA needed to make sure that PWSs indicate whether their hypochlorite

solution was generated on or off site (onsite: Essentially no storage

of stock solution will be needed; offsite: The storage of stock

solution will be needed).

EPA agrees that the presentation of the requirements warranted

clarification and has revised the list of disinfectants. EPA will

clearly indicate in the data reporting system (SDWARS) that PWSs should

identify all of the disinfectants used to treat the water.

4. Reporting Schedule

a. This Rule

To help ensure that monitoring and reporting are conducted as

scheduled,

[[Page 26086]]

UCMR 3 specifies several deadlines related to initial reporting of

inventory and scheduling information, as well as reporting of

monitoring data. Several deadlines were newly proposed for UCMR 3

(i.e., not used for UCMR 1 or UCMR 2) and finalized in this rule, and

some are revised in this final rule to ensure that UCMR 3 is

implemented as scheduled. These deadlines are being established to

allow EPA enough time to review and process the information, and

complete the planning process for UCMR 3 monitoring to begin on January

1, 2013. Changes in deadlines only affect large systems. There are no

changes to small system reporting schedules. The schedule changes that

are finalized in this rule include:

Inventory and Scheduling: Large systems that are subject

to UCMR 3 must report their inventory and sampling location information

(141.35(c)(2)), and any proposed changes to their monitoring schedule

(141.35(c)(5)(i) and 141.40(a)(4)(i)) no later than October 1, 2012. As

noted, EPA has loaded existing information into SDWARS 3 prior to the

publication of this final rule. PWSs will have until October 1, 2012,

to update, edit or change their inventory and sample location

information or monitoring schedule in SDWARS 3.

Ground water representative monitoring plans: As described

in 141.35(c)(3), large systems that use ground water sources and that

have multiple EPTDSs can, with prior approval, conduct monitoring at

representative sampling locations rather than at each EPTDS. For

systems that have existing approved representative monitoring plans,

their approved sampling location information will be pre‐loaded into

SDWARS and systems must review and confirm, or update this information

by October 1, 2012. This rule establishes a deadline of August 1, 2012,

for submitting a new ground water representative plan to be reviewed by

the State or EPA.

Monitoring data: This rule re‐establishes two deadlines

related to reporting of monitoring data: Large systems must require

their laboratories to post data to SDWARS within 120 days of sample

collection; and large systems must review, approve and submit the data

to their State and EPA within 60 days of when the laboratory posts the

data. These time frames are specified in 141.35(c)(6)(ii) and

141.40(a)(5)(vi).

b. Summary of Major Comments

Five (5) comments were received on the reduced laboratory reporting

time frame. Most commenters did not support the 60‐day proposed time

frame for laboratories to post data to SDWARS and expressed several

concerns: that laboratories may see increased workload due to

additional monitoring; that UCMR 3 methods are not in common use and

are very sensitive, so greater validation of results may be required;

and that field blank analysis may be required for some methods,

resulting in longer turnaround times for sampling results. Commenters

did not believe that the reduced reporting time frame would increase

compliance with monitoring schedules. Seven comments were also received

regarding the 30‐day proposed time frame for large PWSs to review and

approve their data. The majority of the commenters requested the time

frame be returned to the 60‐day period used under UCMR 1 and 2.

Commenters believe the shortened time frame would not give PWSs

sufficient time to conduct a full data review and that schedule

coordination among multiple staff would be difficult. After considering

the public comments, EPA returned the laboratory reporting time frame

to 120 days after sample collection (same as earlier UCMRs) and

returned the PWS reporting time frame to 60 days after laboratory

posting data (same as earlier UCMRs).

IV. State and Tribal Participation

A. Partnership Agreements

1. This Rule

Under UCMR 3, States may continue to have a role in rule

implementation through Partnership Agreements (PAs). Because specific

activities for individual States are identified and established through

the PAs, not through rule language, this rule does not contain
reference to PAs.

2. Summary of Major Comments

EPA received no comments regarding State participation in UCMR 3.

B. Governors' Petition and State‐Wide Waivers

1. This Rule

This rule retains the UCMR 1 and 2 language that, consistent with

SDWA, allows a minimum of seven State Governors to petition EPA to add

contaminants to the UCMR Contaminant list. This rule also retains the

UCMR 1 and 2 language that allows States to waive monitoring

requirements with EPA approval and under very limited conditions.

2. Summary of Major Comments

EPA received no comments regarding the governor's petition or

state‐wide waiver allowances of UCMR 3.

V. Cost and Benefits of This Rule

In this rule, EPA finalizes a new set of contaminants for

monitoring in the third five‐year UCMR monitoring period. UCMR 3 also

incorporates modifications to improve the rule design. UCMR 3

Assessment Monitoring (for List 1 contaminants) will be conducted from

January 2013 through December 2015 by 800 systems serving 10,000 or

fewer people, and by all systems serving more than 10,000 people. The

800 small systems will be randomly selected for List 1 monitoring. The

UCMR 3 Screening Survey (for List 2 contaminants) will be conducted

from January 2013 through December 2015 by all systems serving a

population of greater than 100,000 people, a nationally representative

set of 320 systems serving between 10,001 and 100,000 people, and a

nationally representative set of 480 systems serving fewer than 10,000

people. The nationally representative sets of 320 and 480 systems will

both be randomly selected for List 2 monitoring. The Pre‐Screen Testing

for List 3 contaminants will also be conducted from January 2013

through December 2015 in 800 undisinfected ground water systems serving

1,000 or fewer persons. No small system will be selected for more than

one UCMR 3 monitoring list.

It is assumed for this cost estimate that one‐third of systems will

monitor during each of the three monitoring years. Labor costs pertain

to systems, States, and EPA. They include activities such as reading

the regulation, notifying systems selected to participate, training

water system staff on sample collection procedures, sample collection,

including travel time to collect samples, data review, reporting, and

record keeping. Non‐labor costs will be incurred primarily by EPA and

by large PWSs. They include the cost of shipping samples to

laboratories for testing and the cost of the actual laboratory

analyses.

In this rule, EPA specifies seven EPA‐developed analytical methods

and four equivalent consensus organization developed methods to monitor

for 27 unregulated chemical contaminants, two viruses, and total

chromium. While this preamble also describes the analytical methods

that will be used for virus monitoring, the rule does not address these

methods. Laboratory approval for virus monitoring is not addressed

since all of the analyses for the two viruses will be conducted in

laboratories under EPA contract and at EPA's expense. Estimated system

and EPA costs are based on the analytical costs for all UCMR 3 methods.

With the

[[Page 26087]]

exception of Methods 200.8 and 300.1, these methods are comparatively

new and will not coincide with other compliance monitoring (i.e., no

cost savings for concurrent monitoring can be realized).

Laboratory analysis and shipping of samples account for

approximately 82% of the total national cost for UCMR 3 implementation.

These costs are calculated as follows: the number of systems,

multiplied by the number of sampling locations, multiplied by the

sampling frequency, multiplied by the unit cost of laboratory analysis.

Under UCMR 3, for List 1 Assessment Monitoring and List 2 Screening

Survey, surface water (and ground water under the direct influence of

surface water (GWUDI)) sampling points will be monitored four times

during the applicable year of monitoring, and ground water sample

points will be monitored twice during the applicable year of

monitoring. Systems will monitor for the metals‐‐cobalt, molybdenum,

vanadium, strontium, chromium‐6, and total chromium‐‐as well as

chlorate, at their EPTDS sampling locations and at one distribution

system sampling point per treatment plant (i.e., at the DSMRT). Pre‐

Screen Testing systems will monitor two times during the three year

monitoring period (2013 through 2015) at their EPTDS.

Following publication of the proposed rule and EPA's initial cost

and burden estimates, EPA received several cost‐related public

comments. Several suggested that EPA's estimates of cost and burden

(e.g., laboratory and estimated labor burden) to PWSs were too low. EPA

estimates of laboratory fees are based on consultations with commercial

drinking water laboratories and a review of the costs of similar

analytical methods. In response to comments, EPA revisited the

analytical method cost estimates. EPA approached four commercial

drinking water laboratories and requested pricing estimates for UCMR 3

methods, including the cost of field blanks for methods 524.3 (VOCs),

537 (PFCs), and 539 (hormones). EPA averaged the estimates from the

four laboratories and updated the cost figures, which resulted in

increased cost estimates for some methods.

With respect to per‐system burden estimates, EPA notes that all

estimates represent average burden hours, which include surface water

systems that may have very few sampling points, and thus lower sampling

burden, as well as those systems with higher numbers of sampling points

that would have greater labor burden. Moreover, a system's burden is

primarily incurred during its one year of required UCMR monitoring
(between January 2013 and December 2015). However, in compliance with

the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et

seq.), these cost and burden estimates are presented as an average over

the applicable three‐year information collection request (ICR) period

(2012‐2014). Small systems (those serving 10,000 or fewer people) will

have the lowest burden not only because they generally have fewer

sampling locations, but also because these systems will receive

substantial direct assistance from EPA and/or their State.

The total cost of Assessment Monitoring analyses is estimated at

$1,085 per sample set. The total cost of the single Screening Survey

method is estimated at $418 per sample set. Field blank analyses costs

are further described in ``Information Collection Request for the

Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (UCMR 3)'' (USEPA,

2012a). The cost to EPA of the Pre‐Screen analyses for viruses and

related pathogen indicators (i.e., total coliforms, E. coli,

bacteriophage, Enterococci, and aerobic spores) is estimated at $1,880

per sample set. Shipping estimates are added to the calculated costs to

derive the total direct analytical non‐labor costs. Estimated shipping

costs were based on the average cost of shipping a 25‐pound package.

In preparing the UCMR 3 ICR, EPA relied on standard assumptions and

data sources used in the preparation of other drinking water program

ICRs. These include the PWS inventory, number of sampling points per

system, and labor rates. EPA expects that States will incur only labor

costs associated with voluntary assistance with UCMR 3 implementation.

State costs were estimated using the relevant modules of the State

Resource Model that was developed by the Association of State Drinking

Water Administrators (ASDWA) in conjunction with EPA (ASDWA, 2003) to

help States forecast resource needs. Model estimates were adjusted to

account for actual levels of State participation under UCMR. Because

State participation is voluntary, level of effort will vary across

States and depend on their individual agreements with EPA.

Over the UCMR implementation period of 2012‐2016, EPA estimates

that nationwide, the annual cost of UCMR 3 is approximately $17.45

million, of which water systems and States will pay approximately $13.3

million; and EPA will pay $4.14 million (most of which is associated

with small system monitoring). These total estimated annual costs

(labor and non‐labor) are incurred as follows:

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Avg. annual cost. all

Respondent respondents (2012‐2016)

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Small Systems (25‐10,000), including labor $0.066 m

only, non‐labor costs paid for by EPA.........

Large Systems (10,001‐100,000), including labor 9.55 m

and non‐labor costs...........................

Very Large Systems (100,001 and greater), 2.94 m

including labor and non‐labor costs...........

States, including labor costs related to 0.75 m

implementation coordination...................

EPA, including labor for implementation, non‐ 4.14 m

labor for small system testing................

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Average Annual National Total \1\.......... 17.45 m

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

\1\ Average Annual National Total of $17.45 million is based on

rounding.

Over the period of 2012‐2016, EPA estimates that nationwide, the

total cost of UCMR 3 is approximately $87 million, of which water

systems and States will pay approximately $66 million and EPA will pay

$21 million.

Additional details regarding EPA's cost assumptions and estimates

can be found in the ICR amendment prepared for this final rule (Office

of Management and Budget (OMB) number 2040‐‐NEW), which presents

estimated cost and burden for the 2012‐2014 period (USEPA, 2012a).

Estimates of costs over the entire five‐year UCMR 3 period of 2012‐2016

are attached as an appendix to the ICR. Copies of the ICR and its

amendment may be obtained from the EPA public docket for this final

rule

[[Page 26088]]

under Docket ID Number EPA‐HQ‐OW‐2009‐0090.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and

Executive Order 13563 (76 FR. 3821, January 21, 2011, this action is a

``significant regulatory action.'' Accordingly, EPA submitted this

action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011) and any

changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in

the docket for this action.

In addition, EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs and

benefits associated with this action. This analysis is contained in the

``Information Collection Request for the Unregulated Contaminant

Monitoring Regulation (UCMR 3)'' (USEPA, 2012a). A copy of the analysis

is available in the docket for this action and the analysis is briefly

summarized in Section V of the preamble of this final rule.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements in this rule have been
submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The

information collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB

approves them.

The information collected under this final rule fulfills the

statutory requirements of Section 1445(a)(2) of SDWA, as amended in

1996. The data collected will describe the source of the water,

location, and test results for samples taken from PWSs. The

concentrations of any identified UCMR contaminants will be evaluated in

conjunction with health effects information and will be considered for

future regulation accordingly. Reporting is mandatory. The data are not

subject to confidentiality protection.

The annual burden and cost estimates described in this section are

for the implementation assumptions described in Section V. Cost and

Benefits of the Rule. Respondents to the UCMR 3 will include 2,080

small water systems (800 for Assessment Monitoring, 480 for Screening

Survey, and 800 for Pre‐Screen Testing), the 4,215 large PWSs (those

serving more than 10,000 people), and the 56 States and Primacy

agencies (6,351 total respondents). The frequency of response varies

across respondents and years. System costs (particularly laboratory

analytical costs) vary depending on the number of sampling locations.

For cost estimates, it is assumed that systems will conduct sampling

evenly across January 2013 through December 2015 (i.e., one‐third of

systems in each of the 3 consecutive 12‐month periods). Because the

applicable ICR period is 2012‐2014, the third year of monitoring

activity (i.e., January through December of 2015) is not captured in

the current ICR estimates.

The burden and cost estimates presented in this section represent

average costs. In some cases, the costs are presented as an annual

average. Average burden or cost per system was derived by calculating

total costs, and dividing by the total number of systems expected to

monitor during the ICR years of 2012‐2014. Average annual burden or

cost per system was derived by summing total costs (or burden),

dividing by the number of systems expected to monitor during the ICR

years of 2012‐2014, and then dividing by three years. The total costs

and the annual average costs over the ICR years of 2012‐2014 are

presented in Exhibit 7. Total and annual average costs for the entire

5‐year UCMR 3 period can be found in the ICR for UCMR 3, available in

the docket for this final rule.

Small systems (those serving 10,000 or fewer) that are selected for

UCMR 3 monitoring will sample an average of 1.8 times per system (i.e.,

number of responses per system) across the three‐year ICR period of

2012‐2014. The average burden per response for small systems is

estimated to be 3.8 hours. Large systems (those serving 10,001 to

100,000 people) and very large systems (those serving more than 100,000

people) will sample and report an average of 2.7 and 3.7 times per

system, respectively, across the three‐year ICR period of 2012‐2014.

The average burden per response for large and very large systems is

estimated to be 9.2 and 10.2 hours, respectively. States are assumed to

have an average of 1.0 response per year (3.0 responses per State

across the three‐year ICR period of 2012‐2014), related to coordination

with EPA and systems, with an average burden per response of 233 hours.

In aggregate, during the ICR period of 2012‐2014, the average response

(e.g., responses from systems and States) is associated with a burden

of 11.6 hours, with a labor plus non‐labor cost of $4,218 per response.

Exhibit 7 presents respondent burden and cost estimates for the ICR

period of 2012‐2014.

Exhibit 7‐‐UCMR 3 Per Respondent Burden and Cost Summary for the ICR Period

[2012‐2014]

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Very large

Burden (hours)/cost (dollars) Small systems Large systems systems States National average

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Three‐Year Total per Respondent

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Total of Responses per Respondent................... 1.8 2.7 3.7 3.0 2.5

Labor Cost per Respondent..................................... $160 $775 $1,437 $41,975 $1,160

Non‐Labor Cost per Respondent................................. $0 $11,785 $34,181 $0 $9,237

Total Cost (Labor plus Non‐Labor)............................. $160 $12,560 $35,619 $41,975 $10,397

Total Cost per Response....................................... $89 $4,677 $9,704 $13,992 $4,218

Total Burden per Respondent (hr).............................. 6.9 24.8 37.5 700.1 28.7

Total Burden per Response (hr)................................ 3.8 9.24 10.2 233.4 11.6

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Average Annual per Respondent

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Avg. of Responses per Respondent.................... 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.0 0.8

Labor Cost per Respondent..................................... $53 $258 $479 $13,992 $387

Non‐Labor Cost per Respondent................................. $0 $3,928 $11,394 $0 $3,079

Avg. Cost (Labor plus Non‐Labor).............................. $53 $4,187 $11,873 $13,992 $3,466

Avg. Cost per Response........................................ $30 $1,559 $3,235 $4,664 $1,406

Avg. Burden per Respondent (hr)............................... 2.3 8.3 12.5 233.4 9.6

[[Page 26089]]

Avg. Burden per Response (hr)................................. 1.3 3.1 3.4 61.3 3.9

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

The average per respondent burden hours and costs per year for the

ICR period of 2012‐2014 are: small systems‐‐2.3 hour burden at $53 for

labor; large systems‐‐8.3 hours at $258 for labor, and $3,928 for

analytical costs; very large systems‐‐12.5 hours at $479 for labor, and

$11,394 for analytical costs; and States‐‐233.4 hours at $13,992 for

labor. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

Exhibit 8 shows the annual and total national cost and burden for

UCMR 3 implementation over the ICR period of 2012‐2014.
Exhibit 8‐‐UCMR 3 Annual National Cost and Burden

[2012‐2014]

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Cost (in millions) 2012 2013 2014 Total

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Small System Costs............................................ $0 $0.11 $0.11 $0.22

Large System Costs............................................ 0 15.92 15.92 31.84

Very Large System Costs....................................... 0 4.90 4.90 9.81

State Costs................................................... 0.33 1.0 1.0 2.4

EPA Costs..................................................... 0.92 6.63 6.57 14.12

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Total Cost................................................ 1.26 28.55 28.53 58.34

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Total Burden (thousands of hours) for All Responses 2012 2013 2014 Total

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Small Systems................................................... 0 4.8 4.8 9.5

Large Systems................................................... 0 31.5 31.5 62.9

Very Large Systems.............................................. 0 5.2 5.2 10.3

States.......................................................... 13.3 13.6 12.2 39.2

EPA............................................................. 5.7 11.4 11.4 28.6

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Total Burden................................................ 19.1 66.5 65.1 150.6

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required

to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a

currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's

regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When this ICR is

approved by OMB, the agency will publish a technical amendment to 40

CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to display the OMB control number

for the approved information collection requirements contained in this

final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency

to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to

notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative

Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the

rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,

small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.

The RFA provides default definitions for each type of small entity.

Small entities are defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the

Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201;

(2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city,

county, town, school district or special district with a population of

less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any ``not‐for‐

profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not

dominant in its field.'' However, the RFA also authorizes an agency to

use alternative definitions for each category of small entity, ``which

are appropriate to the activities of the agency'' after proposing the

alternative definition(s) in the Federal Register and taking comment (5

U.S.C. 601(3)‐(5)). In addition, to establish an alternative small

business definition, agencies must consult with SBA's Chief Counsel for

Advocacy.

For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small

entities, EPA considered small entities to be PWSs serving 10,000 or

fewer people, because this is the system size specified in SDWA as

requiring special consideration with respect to small system

flexibility. As required by the RFA, EPA proposed using this

alternative definition in the Federal Register (63 FR 7606, February

13, 1998 (USEPA, 1998a)), requested public comment, consulted with the

SBA, and finalized the alternative definition in the Consumer

Confidence Reports rulemaking (63 FR 44512, August 19, 1998 (USEPA,

1998b)). Consistent with that Final Rule, the alternative definition

has been applied to this regulation.

After considering the economic impacts of this rule on small

entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The small

entities directly regulated by this rule are PWSs serving 10,000 or

fewer people. EPA has determined that the small entities subject to the

requirements of this rule are a subset of the small PWSs (those serving

10,000 or fewer people). The agency has determined that 2,080 small

PWSs (across Assessment Monitoring, Screening Survey, and Pre‐Screen

[[Page 26090]]

Testing), or approximately 3% of small systems, will experience an

impact of no more than 0.4% of revenues; the remainder of small systems

will not be impacted.

Although this final rule will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA has tried to

reduce the impact of this rule on small entities. To ensure that this

rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities, EPA will assume all costs for analyses of the

samples and for shipping the samples from these systems to the

laboratories contracted by EPA to analyze UCMR 3 samples. EPA has set

aside $2.0 million each year from the State Revolving Fund (SRF) with

its authority to use SRF monies for the purposes of implementing this

provision of SDWA. Thus, the costs to these small systems will be

limited to the labor hours associated with 2,080 small systems

assisting EPA in collecting UCMR samples and preparing them for
shipping.

The evaluation of the overall impact on small systems, summarized

in the preceding discussion, is further described as follows. EPA

analyzed the impacts for privately‐owned and publicly‐owned water

systems separately due to the different economic characteristics of

these ownership types, such as different rate structures and profit

goals. For both publicly‐ and privately‐owned systems, EPA used the

``revenue test,'' which compares annual system costs attributed to the

rule to the system's annual revenues. Median revenue data from the 2006

Community Water System Survey Volume II: Detailed Tables and Survey

Methodology (http://water.epa.gov/aboutow/ogwdw/upload/cwssreportvolumeII2006.pdf) were used for public and private water

systems. EPA assumes that the distribution of the sample of

participating small systems will reflect the proportions of publicly‐

and privately‐owned systems in the national inventory. The estimated

distribution of the representative sample, categorized by ownership

type, source water, and system size, is presented in Exhibit 9.

Exhibit 9‐‐Number of Publicly‐ and Privately‐Owned Small Systems Subject to UCMR 3

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Privately‐

System size (number of people served) Publicly‐owned owned Total

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Ground Water

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

500 and under................................................... 134 402 536

501 to 3,300.................................................... 548 208 757

3,301 to 10,000................................................. 286 66 352

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Subtotal GW................................................. 968 677 1,645

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Surface Water (and GWUDI)

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

500 and under................................................... 7 9 16

501 to 3,300.................................................... 98 35 133

3,301 to 10,000................................................. 222 64 286

Subtotal SW..................................................... 327 108 435

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Total of Small Water Systems................................ 1,295 785 2,080

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

The basis for the UCMR 3 RFA certification for this final rule is

as follows: for the 2,080 small water systems that will be affected,

the average annual costs for complying with this rule represent 0.4% of

system revenues (the highest estimated percentage is for ground water

systems serving 500 or fewer people, at 0.40% of its median revenue).

Exhibit 10 presents the annual costs to small systems and to EPA for

the small system sampling program, along with an illustration of system

participation for each year of the UCMR 3 program.

Exhibit 10‐‐EPA and Systems Costs for Implementation of UCMR 3 at Small Systems

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Cost description 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Costs to EPA for Small System $0 $5,407,233........... $5,407,233........... $5,407,233........... $0 $16,221,698

Program (including Assessment

Monitoring, Screening Survey, and

Pre‐Screen Testing).

Costs to Small Systems including 0 $110,720............. 110,720.............. 110,720.............. 0 332,160

Assessment Monitoring, Screening

Survey, and Pre‐Screen Testing.

Total Costs to EPA and Small 0 $5,517,953........... 5,517,953............ 5,517,953............ 0 16,553,858

Systems for UCMR 3:.

System Monitoring Activity

Timeline: \1\

Assessment Monitoring.......... .............. \1/3\ PWSs Sample.... \1/3\ PWSs Sample.... \1/3\ PWSs Sample.... .............. 800

Screening Survey............... .............. \1/3\ PWSs Sample.... \1/3\ PWSs Sample.... \1/3\ PWSs Sample.... .............. 480

[[Page 26091]]

Pre‐Screen Testing............. .............. \1/3\ PWSs Sample.... \1/3\ PWSs Sample.... \1/3\ PWSs Sample.... .............. 800

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

\1\ Total number of systems is 2,080. No small system conducts more than one type of monitoring study.

System costs are attributed to the labor required for reading about

their requirements, training staff on requirements, monitoring,

including travel time needed to collect samples, reporting, and record

keeping. The estimated average annual burden across the five‐year UCMR

3 implementation period of 2012‐2016 is estimated to be 1.4 hours at

$32 per small system. Average annual cost, in all cases, is less than

or equal to 0.40% of system revenues. As required by SDWA, the agency

specifically structured the rule to avoid significantly affecting small

entities by assuming all costs for laboratory analyses, shipping, and

quality control for small entities. As a result, EPA incurs the

entirety of the non‐labor costs associated with UCMR 3 small system

monitoring, or 98% of total small system testing costs. Exhibits 11 and

12 present the estimated economic impacts in the form of a revenue test

for publicly‐ and privately‐owned systems.

Exhibit 11‐‐UCMR 3 Relative Cost Analysis for Small Publicly‐Owned Systems (2012‐2016)

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Annual number of Average annual Average annual

System size (number of people served) systems hours per system cost per system Revenue test \1\

impacted (2012‐2016) (2012‐2016) (%)

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Ground Water Systems

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
500 and under........................ 27 1.14 $24.16 0.08

501 to 3,300......................... 110 1.24 27.67 0.02

3,301 to 10,000...................... 57 1.57 39.71 0.01

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Surface Water (and GWUDI) Systems

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

500 and under........................ 1 1.63 34.71 0.06

501 to 3,300......................... 20 1.69 37.74 0.02

3,301 to 10,000...................... 44 1.79 45.35 0.005

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

\1\ The ``Revenue Test'' was used to evaluate the economic impact of an information collection on small

government entities (e.g., publicly‐owned systems); costs are presented as a percentage of median annual

revenue in each size category.

Exhibit 12‐‐UCMR 3 Relative Cost Analysis for Small Privately‐Owned Systems (2012‐2016)

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Annual number of Average annual Average annual

System size (number of people served) systems hours per system cost per system Revenue Test\1\

impacted (2012‐2016) (2012‐2016) (%)

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Ground Water Systems

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

500 and under........................ 80 1.14 $24.16 0.40

501 to 3,300......................... 42 1.24 27.67 0.02

3,301 to 10,000...................... 13 1.57 39.74 0.004

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Surface Water (and GWUDI) Systems

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

500 and under........................ 2 1.63 34.71 0.10

501 to 3,300......................... 7 1.69 37.74 0.01

3,301 to 10,000...................... 13 1.79 45.35 0.005

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

\1\ The ``Revenue Test'' was used to evaluate the economic impact of an information collection on small private

entities (e.g., privately‐owned systems); costs are presented as a percentage of median annual revenue in each

size category.

EPA specifically solicited additional comment on the proposed

action on small systems. No comments were received.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

This rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in

expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal

governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year.

Total annual costs of this final rule (across the implementation period

of 2012‐2016), for State, local, and Tribal governments and the private

sector, are estimated to be $17.45 million, of which EPA will pay $4.14

million, or approximately 24%. Thus, this rule is not subject to the

requirements of Sections 202 or 205 of UMRA.

This rule is also not subject to the requirements of Section 203 of

UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might

significantly or uniquely affect small governments. As noted

previously, the agency expects to pay for the reasonable costs of

sample analysis for the small PWSs required to monitor for unregulated

contaminants under this final rule, including those owned and operated

by small governments. The only costs that small systems will incur are

labor costs attributed to collecting the UCMR samples and packing them

for shipment

[[Page 26092]]

to the laboratory (EPA will pay for shipping). These costs are minimal.

They are not significant or unique. Thus, this rule is not subject to

the requirements of UMRA Section 203.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have

substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between

the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power

and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as

specified in Executive Order 13132. The cost to State and local

governments is minimal and the rule does not preempt State law. Thus,

Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action. In the spirit of

Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote

communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA

specifically solicited comment on the proposed action from State and

local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian

Tribal Governments

Subject to the Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,

2000) EPA may not issue a regulation that has tribal 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 tribal governments, or

EPA consults with tribal officials early in the process of developing

the proposed regulation and develops a tribal summary impact statement.

EPA has concluded that this action will have tribal implications.

However, it will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on

tribal governments, nor preempt Tribal law. As described previously,

this final rule requires monitoring by all large systems (i.e., those

serving 10,001 to 100,000 people) and all very large systems (i.e.,

those serving greater than 100,000 people); 17 Tribal water systems

have been identified as large systems based on information in the
SDWIS/Fed water system inventory. EPA estimates the average annual cost

to each of these large systems, over the five‐year rule period, to be

less than $2,512 (total cost of about $12,560 per system during the

five‐year rule period). This cost is based on a labor component

(associated with the collection of samples) and a non‐labor component

(associated with shipping and laboratory fees) and represents less than

0.09% of average revenue/sales for large systems. UCMR also requires

monitoring by a nationally representative sample of small systems

(i.e., those serving 10,000 or fewer people). EPA estimates that

approximately one percent of small Tribal systems will be selected as

part of a nationally representative sample for Assessment Monitoring,

Screening Survey or Pre‐Screen Testing. EPA estimates the average

annual cost to the small Tribal systems, over the five year rule period

to be $32 (total cost of about $160 per system over the five‐year rule

period). Such cost is based on the labor associated with collecting a

sample and preparing it for shipping and represents 0.4% or less of

average revenue/sales for small systems. All other small system

expenses (associated with shipping and laboratory fees) are paid by

EPA.

EPA consulted with tribal officials early in the process of

developing UCMR to permit them to have meaningful and timely input into

its development. In developing the original UCMR rule, EPA held

stakeholder meetings and prepared background information for

stakeholder review. EPA sent requests for review of stakeholder

documents to nearly 400 Tribes, Tribal organizations, and small systems

organizations to obtain their input. Representatives from the Indian

Health Service (IHS) Sanitary Deficiency System and Tribes were

consulted regarding decisions on rule design, the design for the

statistical selection of small systems, and potential costs. Tribes

raised issues concerning the selection of the nationally representative

sample of small systems, particularly the manner in which Tribal

systems would be considered under the sample selection process. EPA

developed the sample frame for Tribal systems and Alaska Native water

systems in response to those concerns. EPA worked with the Tribes,

Alaska Natives, the IHS, and the States to determine how to classify

each Tribal system for consideration in the statistically‐based

selection of the nationally representative sample of small systems. As

a result of those discussions, small PWSs located in Indian country in

each of the EPA Regions containing Indian country were evaluated as

part of a Tribal category that receives selection consideration

comparable to that of small systems outside of Indian country. Thus,

Tribal systems have the same probability of being selected as other

water systems in the stratified selection process that weighs systems

by water source and size class by population served. This final rule

maintains the basic program design of UCMR 1 and 2, and continues to

build upon the structure of this cyclical program. As part of the

development of this rule, EPA held a public stakeholder meeting on

April 7, 2010. This meeting was announced to the public in a Federal

Register notice dated February 23, 2010 (75 FR 8063 (USEPA, 2010a)).

Prior to the meeting, background materials and rule development

information were sent to specific stakeholders, including

representatives from the IHS and the Native American Water Association.

EPA specifically solicited additional comment on the proposed

action from tribal officials. EPA received no comments.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental

Health Risks and Safety Risks

This action is not subject to EO 13045 because it is not an

economically significant regulation pursuant to EO 12866.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in

Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not

likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,

distribution, or use of energy. None of the final UCMR requirements

involve actions that use a significant amount of energy.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104‐113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory

activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or

otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical

standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling

procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by

voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide

Congress, through OMB, explanations when the agency decides not to use

available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.

This rulemaking involves technical standards. EPA has decided to

use the methods developed by the agency as well as voluntary consensus

standards for the analysis of UCMR 3 contaminants. The agency conducted

a search of potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards and

identified two major organizations

[[Page 26093]]

whose methods are acceptable for determinations under UCMR. These

organizations are Standard Methods (SM) and ASTM International. For

many of the parameters included in this final action, EPA was unable to

identify methods from voluntary consensus method organizations that

were appropriate for the monitoring required. However, EPA identified

acceptable consensus method organization standards for the analysis of

total chromium, vanadium, molybdenum, cobalt, strontium and chlorate.
Therefore, EPA is approving analytical methods published by EPA, SM,

and ASTM International for these analytes.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental

Justice in Minority Populations and Low‐Income Populations

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes

federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision

directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and

permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission

by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high

and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,

policies, and activities on minority populations and low‐income

populations in the United States.

EPA has determined that this final rule will not have

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental

effects on minority or low‐income populations. By seeking to identify

unregulated contaminants that may pose health risks via drinking water

from all PWSs, UCMR furthers the protection of public health for all

citizens, including minority and low‐income populations using public

water supplies. UCMR uses a statistically‐derived set of systems for

the nationally representative sample that is population‐weighted within

each system size and source water category so that any PWS within a

category has an equivalent likelihood of selection. Additionally, EPA

is requiring that PWSs report all U.S. Postal Service Zip Codes in

their service area. This additional data element will be used in the

evaluation of UCMR 3 occurrence data and could potentially identify

areas that have disproportionately high and adverse human health or

environmental effects on minority or low‐income populations.

K. 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 is published in the Federal

Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.

804(2). This rule will be effective June 1, 2012.

VII. Public Involvement in Regulation Development

EPA's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water routinely engages

stakeholders in its regulatory activities for the purpose of providing

early input to regulation development. When designing and developing

the UCMR program in the late 1990s, EPA held meetings for developing

the CCL, establishing the information requirements of the NCOD, and

selecting priority contaminants for UCMR monitoring. During the initial

development of the UCMR program, stakeholders including PWSs, States,

industry, and other organizations attended meetings to discuss the

UCMR. Seventeen other meetings were held specifically concerning UCMR

development. For a description of public involvement activities related

to the first UCMR (UCMR 1), please see the discussion in the September

17, 1999 UCMR Final Rule Federal Register at 64 FR 50556 (USEPA,

1999b).

Specific to the development of UCMR 3, a stakeholder meeting was

held on April 7, 2010, in Washington, DC. There were 22 attendees,

representing State agencies, laboratories, PWSs, environmental groups,

and drinking water associations. The topics of presentations and

discussions included: Status of UCMR 2; rationale for developing the

new list of potential contaminants; analytical methods that could be

used in measuring these contaminants; sampling design; procedure for

determining LCMRLs; laboratory approval; and other potential revisions

based on lessons learned during implementation of UCMR 1 and UCMR 2

(see USEPA, 2010b for presentation materials, and USEPA, 2010c for

meeting notes).

EPA requested public comment on the proposed rule (76 FR 11713,

March 3, 2011 (USEPA, 2011a)), and established a public docket, under

Docket ID No. EPA‐HQ‐OW‐2009‐0090. Each set of comments received in

response to this request was assigned an EPA Document ID (EPA‐HQ‐OW‐

2009‐0090+unique four digit extension) and posted for public access on

regulations.gov. To view comments, search for the docket ID on the

regulations.gov homepage, then click the link to public submissions.

EPA received feedback on UCMR 3 from 53 commenters. Commenters

included: private citizens; local and State governments as well as U.S.

territories; industry and industry groups; drinking water systems and

organizations; and, non‐governmental organizations, such as

environmental and health advocacy groups. An overview of key comments

received is included in Section III of this rule, and the complete

report of comments and full EPA responses can be found in the docket on

regulations.gov (USEPA, 2012b).

VIII. References

ATSDR. 2009. Draft Toxicological Profile for Vanadium. September

2009. Available on the Internet at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp.asp?id=276&tid=50.

Ando, T., S.S. Monroe, J.R. Gentsch, Q. Jin, DC Lewis, and R.I.

Glass. 1995. Detection and differentiation of antigenically distinct

small round‐structured viruses (Norwalk‐like viruses) by reverse

transcription‐PCR and southern hybridization. Journal of Clinical

Microbiology. 33(1):64‐71.

ASDWA. 2003. Public Health Protection Threatened by Inadequate
Resources for State Drinking Water Programs‐‐An Analysis of State

Drinking Water Programs Resources, Needs, and Barriers. April 2003.

ASTM D5673‐10. 2010. Standard Test Method for Elements in Water by

Inductively Coupled Plasma‐Mass Spectrometry. Available for purchase

on the Internet at http://www.astm.org/Standards/D5673.htm.

ASTM D6581‐08. 2008. Standard Test Methods for Bromate, Bromide,

Chlorate, and Chlorite in Drinking Water by Suppressed Ion

Chromatography. Available for purchase on the Internet at http://www.astm.org/Standards/D6581.htm.

Bergmann, H. and S. Koparal. 2005. The formation of chlorine dioxide

in the electrochemical treatment of drinking water for disinfection.

Electrochimica Acta. 50:5218‐5228.

Bolyard, M., P.S. Fair, and D.P. Hautman. 1992. Occurrence of

chlorate in hypochlorite solutions used for drinking water

disinfection. Environmental Science and Technology. 26(8):1663‐1665.

Bolyard, M., P.S. Fair, and D.P. Hautman. 1993. Sources of chlorate

ion in US drinking water. Journal of the American Water Works

Association. 85(9):81‐88.

[[Page 26094]]

Borchardt, M.A. 2008. Wisconsin Water And Health Trial for Enteric

Risks (WAHTER Study)‐‐Part 1: Risk of Illness from Municipal

Groundwater Consumption. EPA Office of Water Symposium on

Groundwater‐Borne Infectious Disease, Etiologic Agents and

Indicators, Washington, DC, December 2‐4, 2008.

Czarnetzki, L.R. and J.J. Janssen. 1992. Formation of hypochlorite,

chlorate, and oxygen during NaCl electrolysis from alkaline

solutions at an RuO2/TiO2 anode. Journal of

Applied Electrochemistry. 22:315‐324.

De Leon, R., C. Shieh, R.S. Baric, and M.D. Sobsey. 1990. Detection

of enteroviruses and hepatitis A virus in environmental samples by

gene probes and polymerase chain reaction. P. 833‐835. In Advances

of Water Analysis and Treatment Proceedings 1989. Water Quality

Technology Conference, American Water Works Association, Denver, CO.

American Water Works Association, San Diego, CA.

Fairbridge, R.W. 1972. The Encyclopedia of Geochemistry and

Environmental Sciences, IVA Volume. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold

Company.

Friedman, M.J., A.S. Hill, S.H Reiber, R.L. Valentine, and G.V.

Korshin. 2009. Assessment of Inorganics Accumulation in Drinking

Water System Scales and Sediments. Published by WRF.

Gallagher, D.L, R.C Hoehn, and A.M. Dietrich. 1994. Sources,

Occurrence, and Control of Chlorine Dioxide By‐Product Residuals in

Drinking Water. Published by AwwaRF and AWWA.

Gerke, T.L., K.G. Scheckel, and J.B. Maynard. 2010. Speciation and

distribution of vanadium in drinking water iron pipe corrosion by‐

products. Science of the Total Environment. 408(23):5845‐5853.

Gibbons, C.D., R.A. Rodriguez., L. Tallon, and M.D. Sobsey. 2010.

Evaluation of positively charged alumina nanofibre cartridge filters

for the primary concentration of noroviruses, adenoviruses and male‐

specific coliphages from seawater. Journal of Applied Microbiology.

109(2):635‐641.

Gordon, G., B. Slootmaekers, S. Tachiyashiki, and D.W. Wood III.

1990. Minimizing chlorite ion and chlorate ion in water treated with

chlorine dioxide. Journal of the American Water Works Association.

82(4):160‐165.

Gordon, G. and S. Tachiyashiki. 1991. Kinetics and mechanism of

formation of chlorate ion from the hypochlorous acid/chlorite ion

reaction at pH 6‐10. Environmental Science and Technology.

25(3):468‐474.

Gordon, G., L.C. Adam, B.P. Bubnis, B. Hoyt, A.J. Gillette, and A.

Wilczak. 1993. Controlling the formation of chlorate ion in liquid

hypochlorite feedstocks. Journal of the American Water Works

Association. 85(9):89‐97.

Gordon, G., L.C. Adam, and B.P. Bubnis. 1995. Minimizing Chlorate

Ion Formation in Drinking Water When Hypochlorite Ion is the

Chlorinating Agent. Published by AwwaRF and AWWA.

Gordon, G., L.C. Adam, B.P. Bubnis, C. Kuo, R.S. Cushing, and R.H.

Sakaji. 1997. Predicting liquid bleach decomposition. Journal of the

American Water Works Association. 89(4):142‐149.

Howard, K.L. and G.L. Boyer. 2007. Quantitative analysis of

cyanobacterial toxins by matrix‐assisted laser desorption ionization

mass spectrometry. Analytical Chemistry. 79(15):5980‐5986.

Hunt, R.J., M.A. Borchardt, K.D. Richards, and S.K. Spencer. 2010.

Assessment of sewer source contamination of drinking water wells

using tracers and human enteric viruses. Environmental Science and

Technology. 44(20):7956‐7963.

Jothikumar, N., J.A. Lowther, K. Henshilwood, D.N. Lees, V.R. Hill,

and J. Vinje[acute]. 2005. Rapid and sensitive detection of

noroviruses by using TaqMan‐based one‐step reverse transcription‐PCR

assays and application to naturally contaminated shellfish samples.

Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 71(4):1870‐1875.

Karim, M.R., E.R. Rhodes, N. Brinkman, L. Wymer, and G.S. Fout.

2009. New electropositive filter for concentrating enteroviruses and

noroviruses from large volumes of water. Applied and Environmental

Microbiology. 75(8):2393‐2399.

Kolodziej, E.P., T. Harter, and D.L. Sedlak. 2004. Dairy wastewater,

aquaculture, and spawning fish as sources of steroid hormones in the

aquatic environment. Environmental Science and Technology. 38:6377‐

6384.

Kolodziej, E.P. and D.L. Sedlak. 2007. Rangeland grazing as a source

of steroid hormones to surface waters. Environmental Science and

Technology. 41:3514‐3520.

Kolpin, D.W., E.T. Furlong, M.T. Meyer, E.M. Thurman, S.D. Zaugg,

L.B. Barber, and H.T. Buxton. 2002. Pharmaceuticals, hormones, and

other organic wastewater contaminants in U.S. streams, 1999‐2000: A

national reconnaissance. Environmental Science and Technology.
36:1202‐1211.

Lambertini, E., S.K. Spencer, P.D. Bertz, F.J. Loge, B.A. Kieke, and

M.A. Borchardt. 2008. Concentration of enteroviruses, adenoviruses,

and noroviruses from drinking water by use of glass wool filters.

Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 74(10):2990‐2996.

Mash, H., K. Schenck, and L. Rosenblum. 2010. Hypochlorite oxidation

of select androgenic steroids. Water Research. 44:1950‐1960.

Monpoeho, S., A. Deh[eacute]e, B. Mignotte, L. Schwartzbrod, V.

Marechal, J.C. Nicolas, S. Billaudel, and V. Ferr[eacute]. 2000.

Quantification of enterovirus RNA in sludge samples by single tube

real‐time RT‐PCR. BioTechniques. 29:88‐95.

Oehrle, S.A., B. Southwell, and J. Westrick. 2010. Detection of

various freshwater cyanobacterial toxins using ultra‐performance

liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry. Toxicon. 55:965‐972.

Rice, R.G. and M. Gomez‐Taylor. 1986. Occurrence of by‐products of

strong oxidants reacting with drinking water contaminants‐scope of

the problem. Environmental Health Perspectives. 69:31‐44.

Siddiqui, M.S. 1996. Chlorine‐ozone interactions: Formation of

chlorate. Water Research. 30(8):2160‐2170.

Snyder, S.A., B.D. Stanford, A.N. Pisarenko, G. Gordon, and M.

Asami. 2009. Hypochlorite‐‐An Assessment of Factors that Influence

the Formation of Perchlorate and Other Contaminants. Jointly funded

by AWWA and WRF. Available on the Internet at http://www.awwa.org/files/GovtPublicAffairs/PDF/HypochloriteAssess.pdf.

SM 3125. 2005. Metals by Inductively Coupled Plasma/Mass

Spectrometry. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water &

Wastewater, 21st edition. American Public Health Association, 800 I

Street NW., Washington, DC 20001‐3710.

SM 4110D. 2005. Determination of Anions by Ion Chromatography, Part

D, Ion Chromatographic Determination of Oxyhalides and Bromide.

Standard Methods for the Examination of Water & Wastewater, 21st

edition. American Public Health Association, 800 I Street NW.,

Washington, DC 20001‐3710.

Stanford, B.D., A.B. Pisarenko, S.A. Snyder, and G. Gordon. 2011.

Perchlorate, bromate, and chlorate in hypochlorite solutions:

Guidelines for utilities. Journal of the American Water Works

Association. 103(6):71‐83.

USEPA. 1994. Method 200.8‐‐Determination of Trace Elements in Waters

and Wastes by Inductively Coupled Plasma‐Mass Spectrometry. Revision

5.4. Available on the Internet at https://www.nemi.gov/.

USEPA. 1995. Handbook for Preparing Office of Research and

Development Reports, Third Edition. EPA 600‐K‐95‐002. August 1995.

USEPA. 1996. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Monitoring

Requirements for Public Drinking Water Supplies: Cryptosporidium,

Giardia, Viruses, Disinfection Byproducts, Water Treatment Plant

Data and Other Information Requirements. Federal Register. Vol. 61,

No. 94, p. 24353, May 14, 1996.

USEPA. 1997. Method 300.1‐‐Determination of Inorganic Anions in

Drinking Water by Ion Chromatography. Revision 1.0. Available on the

Internet at http://water.epa.gov/scitech/drinkingwater/labcert/analyticalmethods_ogwdw.cfm.

USEPA. 1998a. 40 CFR Parts 141 and 142 National Primary Drinking

Water Regulations: Consumer Confidence; Proposed Rule. Federal

Register. Vol. 63, No. 30, p. 7606, February 13, 1998.

USEPA. 1998b. 40 CFR Parts 141 and 142 National Primary Drinking

Water Regulation: Consumer Confidence Reports; Final Rule. Federal

Register. Vol. 63, No. 160, p. 44512, August 19, 1998.

USEPA. 1999a. Alternative Disinfectants and Oxidants Guidance

Manual. Office of Water. EPA 815‐R‐99‐014. April 1999. Available on

the Internet at http://water.

[[Page 26095]]

epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/mdbp/mdbptg.cfm.

USEPA. 1999b. Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring

Regulation for Public Water Systems; Final Rule. Federal Register.

Vol. 64, No. 180, p. 50556, September 17, 1999.

USEPA. 2001. Statistical Design and Sample Selection for the

Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999). EPA 815‐R‐01‐

004. August 2001.

USEPA. 2003. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Stage 2

Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule; National Primary and

Secondary Drinking Water Regulations: Approval of Analytical Methods

for Chemical Contaminants. Federal Register. Vol. 68, No. 159, p.

49547, August 18, 2003.

USEPA. 2006. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Peer Review

Handbook, Third Edition. EPA 100‐B‐06‐002. Available on the Internet

at http://www.epa.gov/peerreview/pdfs/peer_review_handbook_2006.pdf.

USEPA. 2007. Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (UCMR)

for Public Water Systems Revisions. Federal Register. Vol. 72, No.

2, p. 367, January 4, 2007.

USEPA. 2008. Method 522‐‐Determination of 1,4‐Dioxane in Drinking

Water by Solid Phase Extraction (SPE) and Gas Chromatography/Mass

Spectrometry (GC/MS) with Selected Ion Monitoring (SIM). Version

1.0, September 2008. EPA/600/R‐08/101. Available on the Internet at

http://www.epa.gov/nerlcwww/ordmeth.htm.

USEPA. 2009a. Method 524.3‐‐Measurement of Purgeable Organic

Compounds in Water by Capillary Column Gas Chromatography/Mass

Spectrometry. Version 1.0, June 2009. EPA 815‐B‐09‐009. Available on

the Internet at http://water.epa.gov/scitech/drinkingwater/labcert/analyticalmethods_ogwdw.cfm.

USEPA. 2009b. Method 537‐‐Determination of Selected Perfluorinated

Alkyl Acids in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Liquid

Chromatography/Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC/MS/MS). Version 1.1,

September 2009. EPA/600/R‐08/092. Available on the Internet at

http://www.epa.gov/nerlcwww/ordmeth.htm.

USEPA. 2010a. Stakeholder Meeting Regarding Revisions to the

Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation. Federal Register.

Vol. 75, No. 35, p. 8063, February 23, 2010.

USEPA. 2010b. Stakeholder Meeting Regarding Revisions to the
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation‐‐Presentation

Materials. April 7, 2010.

USEPA. 2010c. Stakeholder Meeting Regarding Revisions to the

Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation‐‐Meeting Notes. April

2010.

USEPA. 2010d. The Analysis of Regulated Contaminant Occurrence Data

from Public Water Systems in Support of the Second Six‐Year Review

of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. EPA 815‐B‐09‐006.

September 2010. Available on the Internet at http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/regulatingcontaminants/sixyearreview/second_review/upload/6Yr2OccurrenceRepor

USEPA. 2010e. Method 539‐‐Determination of Hormones in Drinking

Water by Solid Phase Extraction (SPE) and Liquid Chromatography

Electrospray Ionization Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC‐ESI‐MS/MS).

Version 1.0, November 2010. EPA 815‐B‐10‐001. Available on the

Internet at http://water.epa.gov/scitech/drinkingwater/labcert/analyticalmethods_ogwdw.cfm.

USEPA. 2010f. Technical Basis for the Lowest Concentration Minimum

Reporting Level (LCMRL) Calculator. EPA 815‐R‐11‐001. December 2010.

USEPA. 2011a. Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring

Regulation (UCMR 3) for Public Water Systems; Proposed Rule. Federal

Register. Vol. 76, No. 42, p. 11713, March 3, 2011.

USEPA. 2011b. Method 218.7‐‐Determination of Hexavalent Chromium in

Drinking Water by Ion Chromatography with Post‐Column Derivatization

and UV‐Visible Spectroscopic Detection. Version 1.0, November 2011.

EPA 815‐R‐11‐005. Available on the Internet at http://water.epa.gov/scitech/drinkingwater/labcert/analyticalmethods_ogwdw.cfm.

USEPA. 2012a. Information Collection Request for the Unregulated

Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (UCMR 3). March 2012.

USEPA. 2012b. Response to Comments Document for the Unregulated

Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (UCMR 3). EPA 815‐R‐11‐004.

January 2012.

USEPA. 2012c. UCMR 3 Contaminants‐‐Information Compendium. EPA 815‐

B‐11‐001. January 2012.

USEPA. 2012d. UCMR 3 Laboratory Approval Requirements and

Information Document. Version 2.0. EPA 815‐R‐11‐003. January 2012.

von Gunten, U. 2003. Ozonation of drinking water: Part II.

Disinfection and by‐product formation in presence of bromide, iodide

or chlorine. Water Research. 37:1469‐1487.

World Health Organization (WHO). 2005. Chlorite and Chlorate in

Drinking‐water, Background Document for Development of WHO

Guidelines for Drinking‐water Quality, WHO/SDE/WSH/05.08/86.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 141

Environmental protection, Chemicals, Incorporation by reference,

Indian‐lands, Intergovernmental relations, Radiation protection,

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water supply.

40 CFR Part 142

Environmental protection, Administrative practices and procedures,

Chemicals, Indian lands, Radiation protection, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Water supply.

Dated: April 16, 2012.

Lisa P. Jackson,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, Title 40, chapter I of the

Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 141‐‐NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS

0

1. The authority citation for Part 141 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g‐1, 300g‐2, 300g‐3, 300g‐4,

300g‐5, 300g‐6, 300j‐4, 300j‐9, and 300j‐11.

Subpart C‐‐Monitoring and Analytical Requirements

0

2. Section 141.23 is amended in the table to paragraph (k)(1) by

revising entries 18, 19, and 20; by revising footnotes 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,

8, 13, 19, and 22; and by removing footnote 23.

The revisions read as follows:

Sec. 141.23 Inorganic chemical sampling and analytical requirements.

* * * * *

(k) * * *

(1) * * *

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

SM \4\ (18th, SM \4\ (20th

Contaminant Methodology \13\ EPA method ASTM \3\ 19th ed.) ed.) SM online \22\ Other

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

* * * * * * *

18. Nitrate.......... Ion 300.0 \6\, 300.1 D4327‐97, 03.... 4110 B.......... 4110 B.......... 4110 B‐00........... B‐1011 \8\

Chromatography. \19\.

Automated 353.2 \6\........ D3867‐90 A...... 4500‐NO3\‐\ F... 4500‐NO3\‐\ F... 4500‐NO3\‐\ F‐00

Cadmium

Reduction.

Ion Selective ................. ................ 4500‐NO3\‐\ D... 4500‐NO3\‐\ D... 4500‐NO3\‐\ D‐00.... 601 \7\

Electrode.

Manual Cadmium ................. D3867‐90 B...... 4500‐NO3\‐\ E... 4500‐NO3\‐\ E... 4500‐NO3\‐\ E‐00

Reduction.
Capillary Ion ................. D6508‐00.

Electrophoresis.

19. Nitrite.......... Ion 300.0 \6\, 300.1 D4327‐97, 03.... 4110 B.......... 4110 B.......... 4110 B‐00........... B‐1011 \8\

Chromatography. \19\.

Automated 353.2 \6\........ D3867‐90 A...... 4500‐NO3\‐\ F... 4500‐NO3\‐\ F... 4500‐NO3\‐\ F‐00

Cadmium

Reduction.

Manual Cadmium ................. D3867‐90 B...... 4500‐NO3\‐\ E... 4500‐NO3\‐\ E... 4500‐NO3\‐\ E‐00

Reduction.

Spectrophotometr ................. ................ 4500‐NO2\‐\ B... 4500‐NO2\‐\ B... 4500‐NO2\‐\ B‐00

ic.

Capillary Ion ................. D6508‐00

Electrophoresis.

[[Page 26096]]

20. Ortho‐phosphate.. Colorimetric, 365.1 \6\........ ................ 4500‐P F........ 4500‐P F

Automated,

Ascorbic Acid.

Colorimetric, ................. D515‐88 A....... 4500‐P E........ 4500‐P E

ascorbic acid,

single reagent.

Colorimetric ................. ................ ................ ................ .................... I‐1601‐85 \5\

Phosphomolybdat I‐2601‐90 \5\

e; Automated‐ I‐2598‐85 \5\

segmented flow;

Automated

Discrete.

Ion 300.0 \6\, 300.1 D4327‐97, 03.... 4110 B.......... 4110 B.......... 4110 B‐00

Chromatography. \19\.

Capillary Ion ................. D6508‐00

Electrophoresis.

* * * * * * *

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

* * * * *

\3\ Annual Book of ASTM Standards, ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428, http://www.astm.org.; Annual Book of ASTM

Standards 1994, Vols. 11.01 and 11.02; Annual Book of ASTM Standards 1996, Vols. 11.01 and 11.02; Annual Book of ASTM Standards 1999, Vols. 11.01 and

11.02; Annual Book of ASTM Standards 2003, Vols. 11.01 and 11.02.

\4\ Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, American Public Health Association, 800 I Street NW., Washington, DC 20001‐3710;

Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 18th edition (1992); Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 19th

edition (1995); Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 20th edition (1998).The following methods from this edition cannot be

used: 3111 B, 3111 D, 3113 B, and 3114 B.

\5\ U.S. Geological Survey, Federal Center, Box 25286, Denver, CO 80225‐0425; Methods for Analysis by the U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality

Laboratory‐‐Determination of Inorganic and Organic Constituents in Water and Fluvial Sediment, Open File Report 93‐125, 1993; Techniques of Water

Resources Investigation of the U.S. Geological Survey, Book 5, Chapter A‐1, 3rd edition, 1989.

\6\ ``Methods for the Determination of Inorganic Substances in Environmental Samples,'' EPA/600/R‐93/100, August 1993. Available as Technical Report

PB94‐120821 at National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5301 Shawnee Road, Alexandria, VA 22312. http://www.ntis.gov.

\7\ The procedure shall be done in accordance with the Technical Bulletin 601 ``Standard Method of Test for Nitrate in Drinking Water,'' July 1994, PN

221890‐001, Analytical Technology, Inc. Copies may be obtained from ATI Orion, 529 Main Street, Boston, MA 02129.

\8\ Method B‐1011. ``Waters Test Method for Determination of Nitrite/Nitrate in Water Using Single Column Ion Chromatography,'' August, 1987. Copies may

be obtained from Waters Corporation, Technical Services Division, 34 Maple Street, Milford, MA 01757, Telephone: 508/482‐2963, Fax: 508/482‐4056.

* * * * *

\13\ Because MDLs reported in EPA Methods 200.7 and 200.9 were determined using a 2x preconcentration step during sample digestion, MDLs determined when

samples are analyzed by direct analysis (i.e., no sample digestion) will be higher. For direct analysis of cadmium and arsenic by Method 200.7, and

arsenic by Method 3120 B, sample preconcentration using pneumatic nebulization may be required to achieve lower detection limits. Preconcentration may

also be required for direct analysis of antimony, lead, and thallium by Method 200.9; antimony and lead by Method 3113 B; and lead by Method D3559‐

90D, unless multiple in‐furnace depositions are made.

* * * * *

\19\ ``Methods for the Determination of Organic and Inorganic Compounds in Drinking Water,'' Vol. 1, EPA 815‐R‐00‐014, August 2000. Available as

Technical Report PB2000‐106981 at National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5301 Shawnee Road, Alexandria, VA 22312. http://www.ntis.gov.

* * * * *

\22\ Standard Methods Online, American Public Health Association, 800 I Street NW., Washington, DC 20001, available at http://www.standardmethods.org.

The year in which each method was approved by the Standard Methods Committee is designated by the last two digits in the method number. The methods

listed are the only online versions that may be used.

0

3. Section 141.35 is amended as follows:

0

a. In paragraph (a) by revising the third sentence,

0

b. By revising paragraph (b) introductory text,

0

c. By revising paragraph (b)(1),

0

d. In paragraph (b)(2) by revising the first sentence,

0

e. By revising paragraph (c)(1),

0

f. By revising paragraph (c)(2),

0

g. In paragraph (c)(3)(i) by removing ``May 4, 2007'' and adding in its

place, ``August 1, 2012,''

0

h. In paragraph (c)(3)(ii) by adding a new second and third sentence,

0

i. In paragraph (c)(4) by removing ``June 4, 2007'' and adding in its

place, ``October 1, 2012,''
0

j. By revising paragraph (c)(5)(i),

0

k. By revising paragraph (c)(6) introductory text,

0

l. By revising paragraph (c)(6)(ii),

0

m. By revising paragraph (d)(1),

0

n. By revising paragraph (d)(2), and

0

o. In the table to paragraph (e) by revising entry 6.

The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec. 141.35 Reporting for unregulated contaminant monitoring results.

(a) * * * For the purposes of this section, PWS ``population

served'' is the retail population served directly by the PWS as

reported to the Federal Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS/

Fed); wholesale or consecutive populations are not included. * * *

(b) Reporting by all systems. You must meet the reporting

requirements of this paragraph if you meet the applicability criteria

in Sec. 141.40(a)(1) and (2).

(1) Where to submit UCMR reporting requirement information. Some of

your reporting requirements are to be fulfilled electronically and

others by mail. Information that must be submitted using EPA's

electronic data reporting system must be submitted through: http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/ucmr/ucmr3/reporting.cfm.

Documentation that is required to be mailed can be submitted either: To

UCMR Sampling Coordinator, USEPA, Technical Support Center, 26 West

Martin Luther King Drive (MS 140), Cincinnati, OH 45268; or by email at

UCMR_Sampling_Coordinator@epa.gov. In addition, you must notify the

public of the availability of unregulated contaminant monitoring data

as provided in Subpart Q (Public Notification) of this part (40 CFR

141.207). Community Water Systems that detect unregulated contaminants

under this monitoring must also address such detections as part of

their Consumer Confidence Reports, as provided in Subpart O of this

part (40 CFR 141.151).

(2) * * * If you have received a letter from EPA concerning your

required monitoring and your system does not meet the applicability

criteria for UCMR established in Sec. 141.40(a)(1) or (2), or if a

change occurs at your system that may affect your requirements under

UCMR as defined in Sec. 141.40(a)(3) through (5), you must mail or

email a letter to EPA, as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this

section. * * *

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(1) Contact and zip code information. You must provide contact

information by October 1, 2012, and provide updates within 30 days if

this information changes. The contact information must be submitted

using EPA's electronic data reporting system, as specified in paragraph

(b)(1) of this section, and include the name, affiliation, mailing

address, phone number, and email address for your PWS Technical Contact

and your PWS Official. In addition, as a one‐time reporting

requirement, you must report the U.S. Postal Service Zip Code(s) for

all areas being served water by your PWS.

(2) Sampling location and inventory information. You must provide

your sampling location and inventory information by October 1, 2012,

using EPA's electronic data reporting system. You must submit, verify

or update the following information for each sampling location, or for

each approved representative sampling location (as specified in

paragraph (c)(3) of this section regarding representative sampling

locations): PWS identification (PWSID) code; PWS facility

identification code; water source type, sampling point identification

code; and

[[Page 26097]]

sampling point type code; (as defined in Table 1 of paragraph (e) of

this section). If this information changes, you must report updates,

including new sources and sampling locations that are put in use before

or during the PWS' UCMR sampling period, to EPA's electronic data

reporting system within 30 days of the change.

* * * * *

(3) * * *

(ii) * * * The proposed well must be representative of the highest

annual volume producing and most consistently active wells in the

representative array. If that representative well is not in use at the

scheduled sampling time, you must select and sample an alternative

representative well. * * *

* * * * *

(5) * * *

(i) General rescheduling notification requirements. Large systems

may change their Assessment Monitoring (List 1) or Screening Survey

(List 2) schedules up to October 1, 2012, using EPA's electronic data

reporting system, as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.

After these dates have passed, if your PWS cannot sample according to

your assigned sampling schedule (e.g., because of budget constraints,

or if a sampling location will be closed during the scheduled month of

monitoring), you must mail or email a letter to EPA, as specified in

paragraph (b)(1) of this section, prior to the scheduled sampling date.

You must include an explanation of why the samples cannot be taken

according to the assigned schedule, and you must provide the

alternative schedule you are requesting. You are subject to your

assigned UCMR sampling schedule or the schedule that you revised on or

before October 1, 2012, unless and until you receive a letter from EPA

specifying a new schedule.
* * * * *

(6) Reporting monitoring results. For each sample, you must report

all data elements specified in Table 1 of paragraph (e) of this

section, using EPA's electronic data reporting system. You also must

report any changes, relative to what is currently posted, made to data

elements 1 through 6 to EPA, in writing, explaining the nature and

purpose of the proposed change, as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of

this section.

* * * * *

(ii) Reporting schedule. You must ensure that your laboratory posts

the data to EPA's electronic data reporting system within 120 days from

the sample collection date (sample collection must occur as specified

in Sec. 141.40(a)(4)). You have 60 days from when the laboratory posts

the data in EPA's electronic data reporting system to review, approve,

and submit the data to the State and EPA, at the Web address specified

in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. If you do not electronically

approve and submit the laboratory data to EPA within 60 days of the

laboratory's posting data to EPA's electronic reporting system, the

data will be considered approved by you and available for State and EPA

review.

* * * * *

(d) * * *

(1) Contact and zip code information. EPA will send you a notice

requesting contact information for key individuals at your system,

including name, affiliation, mailing address, phone number and email

address. These individuals include your PWS Technical Contact and your

PWS Official. You are required to provide this contact information

within 90 days of receiving the notice from EPA as specified in

paragraph (b)(1) of this section. If this contact information changes,

you also must provide updates within 30 days of the change, as

specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. In addition, as a one‐

time reporting requirement, you must report the U.S. Postal Service Zip

Code(s) for all areas being served water by your PWS.

(2) Reporting sampling information. You must record all data

elements listed in Table 1 of paragraph (e) of this section on each

sample form and sample bottle provided to you by the UCMR Sampling

Coordinator. You must send this information as specified in the

instructions of your sampling kit, which will include the due date and

return address. You must report any changes made in data elements 1

through 6 by mailing or emailing an explanation of the nature and

purpose of the proposed change to EPA, as specified in paragraph (b)(1)

of this section.

(e) * * *

Table 1‐‐Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Reporting Requirements

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Data Element Definition

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

* * * * * * *

6. Disinfectant Type................... All of the disinfectants that have been added to the water being

sampled. To be reported by systems for each sampling point, with

possible choices being:

CLGA= Gaseous chlorine.

CLOF = Offsite Generated Hypochlorite (stored as a liquid form).

CLON = Onsite Generated Hypochlorite (no storage).

CAGC = Chloramine (formed from gaseous chlorine).

CAOF = Chloramine (formed from offsite hypochlorite).

CAON = Chloramine (formed from onsite hypochlorite).

CLDO = Chlorine dioxide.

OZON = Ozone.

ULVL = Ultraviolet Light.

OTHD = All Other Types of Disinfectant.

NODU = No Disinfectant Used.

* * * * * * *

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

[[Page 26098]]

Subpart E‐‐Special Regulations, Including Monitoring Regulations

and Prohibition on Lead Use

0

4. Section 141.40 is amended as follows:

0

a. By revising paragraph (a) introductory text,

0

b. By revising paragraph (a)(1),

0

c. By revising paragraph (a)(2)(i) introductory text,

0

d. By revising the first sentence of paragraph (a)(2)(i)(A),

0

e. By revising paragraph (a)(2)(ii) introductory text,

0

f. By revising paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(A),

0

g. By revising paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(C),

0

h. By revising paragraph (a)(3),

0

i. In paragraph (a)(4)(i) introductory text by removing ``August 2,

2007'' and adding in its place, ``October 1, 2012'',

0

j. By revising paragraph (a)(4)(i)(B),
0

k. By revising paragraph (a)(4)(i)(C),

0

l. In paragraph (a)(4)(i)(D) by removing the last sentence,

0

m. By revising paragraph (a)(4)(ii)(G),

0

n. In paragraph (a)(5)(ii) by removing ``April 4, 2007'' and adding in

its place, ``August 1, 2012'' and by revising the last sentence,

0

o. By revising paragraph (a)(5)(iii) introductory text,

0

p. By revising paragraph (a)(5)(iii)(A)(1),

0

q. By revising paragraph (a)(5)(iv),

0

r. By revising paragraph (a)(5)(vi), and

0

s. By adding paragraph (c).

The revisions and addition read as follows:

Sec. 141.40 Monitoring requirements for unregulated contaminants.

(a) General applicability. This section specifies the monitoring

and quality control requirements that must be followed if you own or

operate a public water system (PWS) that is subject to the Unregulated

Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (UCMR), as specified in paragraphs

(a)(1) and (2) of this section. In addition, this section specifies the

UCMR requirements for State and Tribal participation. For the purposes

of this section, PWS ``population served,'' ``State,'' '' PWS

Official,'' ``PWS Technical Contact,'' and ``finished water'' apply as

defined in Sec. 141.35(a). The determination of whether a PWS is

required to monitor under this rule is based on the type of system

(e.g., community water system, non‐transient non‐community water

system, etc.), and its retail population, as indicated by SDWIS/Fed on

December 31, 2010.

(1) Applicability to transient non‐community systems. If you own or

operate a transient non‐community water system, and you are notified by

your State or EPA, you must permit the State, EPA or their contractors

to collect samples for the contaminants specified on List 3 of Table 1,

in paragraph (a)(3) of this section.

(2) * * *

(i) Large systems. If you own or operate a retail PWS (other than a

transient non‐community system) that serves more than 10,000 people,

you must monitor according to the specifications in this paragraph

(a)(2)(i). If you believe that your applicability status is different

than EPA has specified in the notification letter that you received, or

if you are subject to UCMR requirements and you have not been notified

by either EPA or your State, you must report to EPA, as specified in

Sec. 141.35(b)(2) or (c)(4).

(A) * * * You must monitor for the unregulated contaminants on List

1 and Total Chromium per Table 1, UCMR Contaminant List, in paragraph

(a)(3) of this section. * * *

* * * * *

(ii) Small systems. Small PWSs, as defined in this paragraph, will

not be selected to monitor for any more than one of the three

monitoring lists provided in Table 1, UCMR Contaminant List, in

paragraph (a)(3) of this section. EPA will provide sample containers,

provide pre‐paid air bills for shipping the sampling materials, conduct

the laboratory analysis, and report and review monitoring results for

all small systems selected to conduct monitoring under paragraphs

(a)(2)(ii)(A) through (C) of this section. If you own or operate a PWS

that serves 10,000 or fewer people you must monitor as follows:

(A) Assessment Monitoring. You must monitor for the unregulated

contaminants on List 1 and Total Chromium per Table 1, in paragraph

(a)(3) of this section, if you are notified by your State or EPA that

you are part of the State Monitoring Plan for Assessment Monitoring.

* * * * *

(C) Pre‐Screen Testing. You must allow EPA or its representative to

collect samples to support monitoring for the unregulated contaminants

on List 3 of Table 1, in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, if you are

notified by your State or EPA that you are part of the State Monitoring

plan for Pre‐Screen Testing. In addition, you must permit the

collection of samples as necessary for EPA to perform analysis for

total coliforms, E. coli, bacteriophage, Enterococci and aerobic

spores.

(3) Analytes to be monitored. Lists 1, 2, and 3 of unregulated

contaminants and total chromium monitoring are provided in the

following table:

Table 1‐‐UCMR Contaminant List

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

6‐Period during which

1‐Contaminant 2‐CAS 3‐Analytical methods 4‐Minimum reporting 5‐Sampling location \c\ monitoring to be

Registry No. \a\ level \b\ completed

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

List 1: Assessment Monitoring Chemical Contaminants

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Volatile Organic Compounds

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

1,2,3‐trichloropropane........... 96‐18‐4 EPA 524.3........... 0.03 [micro]g/L......... EPTDS....................... 1/1/2013‐12/31/2015

1,3‐butadiene.................... 106‐99‐0 EPA 524.3........... 0.1 [micro]g/L.......... EPTDS....................... 1/1/2013‐12/31/2015

chloromethane.................... 74‐87‐3 EPA 524.3........... 0.2 [micro]g/L.......... EPTDS....................... 1/1/2013‐12/31/2015

1,1‐dichloroethane............... 75‐34‐3 EPA 524.3........... 0.03 [micro]g/L......... EPTDS....................... 1/1/2013‐12/31/2015

bromomethane..................... 74‐83‐9 EPA 524.3........... 0.2 [micro]g/L.......... EPTDS....................... 1/1/2013‐12/31/2015

chlorodifluoromethane (HCFC‐22).. 75‐45‐6 EPA 524.3........... 0.08 [micro]g/L......... EPTDS....................... 1/1/2013‐12/31/2015
bromochloromethane (Halon 1011).. 74‐97‐5 EPA 524.3........... 0.06 [micro]g/L......... EPTDS....................... 1/1/2013‐12/31/2015

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

[[Page 26099]]

Synthetic Organic Compound

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

1,4‐dioxane...................... 123‐91‐1 EPA 522............. 0.07 [micro]g/L......... EPTDS....................... 1/1/2013‐12/31/2015

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Metals

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

vanadium......................... 7440‐62‐2 EPA 200.8, ASTM 0.2 [micro]g/L.......... EPTDS and DSMRT............. 1/1/2013‐12/31/2015

D5673‐10, SM 3125.

molybdenum....................... 7439‐98‐7 EPA 200.8, ASTM 1. [micro]g/L........... EPTDS and DSMRT............. 1/1/2013‐12/31/2015

D5673‐10, SM 3125.

cobalt........................... 7440‐48‐4 EPA 200.8, ASTM 1. [micro]g/L........... EPTDS and DSMRT............. 1/1/2013‐12/31/2015

D5673‐10, SM 3125.

strontium........................ 7440‐24‐6 EPA 200.8, ASTM 0.3 [micro]g/L.......... EPTDS and DSMRT............. 1/1/2013‐12/31/2015

D5673‐10, SM 3125.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Chromium‐6

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

chromium‐6 \d\................... 18540‐29‐9 EPA 218.7........... 0.03 [micro]g/L......... EPTDS and DSMRT............. 1/1/2013‐12/31/2015

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Oxyhalide Anion

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

chlorate......................... 14866‐68‐3 EPA 300.1, ASTM D 20 [micro]g/L........... EPTDS and DSMRT............. 1/1/2013‐12/31/2015

6581‐08, SM 4110D.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Perfluorinated Compounds

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

perfluorooctanesulfonic acid 1763‐23‐1 EPA 537............. 0.04 [micro]g/L......... EPTDS....................... 1/1/2013‐12/31/2015

(PFOS).

perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA).... 335‐67‐1 EPA 537............. 0.02 [micro]g/L......... EPTDS....................... 1/1/2013‐12/31/2015

perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA).... 375‐95‐1 EPA 537............. 0.02 [micro]g/L......... EPTDS....................... 1/1/2013‐12/31/2015

perfluorohexanesulfonic acid 355‐46‐4 EPA 537............. 0.03 [micro]g/L......... EPTDS....................... 1/1/2013‐12/31/2015

(PFHxS).

perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA).. 375‐85‐9 EPA 537............. 0.01 [micro]g/L......... EPTDS....................... 1/1/2013‐12/31/2015

perfluorobutanesulfonic acid 375‐73‐5 EPA 537............. 0.09 [micro]g/L......... EPTDS....................... 1/1/2013‐12/31/2015

(PFBS).

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

List 2: Screening Survey

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Hormones

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

17‐[beta]‐estradiol.............. 50‐28‐2 EPA 539............. 0.0004 [micro]g/L....... EPTDS....................... 1/1/2013‐12/31/2015

17‐[alpha]‐ethynylestradiol...... 57‐63‐6 EPA 539............. 0.0009 [micro]g/L....... EPTDS....................... 1/1/2013‐12/31/2015

estriol.......................... 50‐27‐1 EPA 539............. 0.0008 [micro]g/L....... EPTDS....................... 1/1/2013‐12/31/2015

equilin.......................... 474‐86‐2 EPA 539............. 0.004 [micro]g/L........ EPTDS....................... 1/1/2013‐12/31/2015

estrone.......................... 53‐16‐7 EPA 539............. 0.002 [micro]g/L........ EPTDS....................... 1/1/2013‐12/31/2015

testosterone..................... 58‐22‐0 EPA 539............. 0.0001 [micro]g/L....... EPTDS....................... 1/1/2013‐12/31/2015

4‐androstene‐3,17‐dione.......... 63‐05‐8 EPA 539............. 0.0003 [micro]g/L....... EPTDS....................... 1/1/2013‐12/31/2015

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

List 3: Pre‐Screen Testing \e\

Microbiological Contaminants

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

enteroviruses.................... N/A N/A................. N/A..................... EPTDS....................... 1/1/2013‐12/31/2015

noroviruses...................... N/A N/A................. N/A..................... EPTDS....................... 1/1/2013‐12/31/2015

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Total Chromium Monitoring

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

total chromium................... N/A EPA 200.8, ASTM 0.2 [micro]g/L.......... EPTDS and DSMRT............. 1/1/2013‐12/31/2015

D5673‐10, SM 3125.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Column headings are:

1‐‐Contaminant: The name of the contaminant to be analyzed.

2‐‐CAS (Chemical Abstract Service) Registry Number or Identification Number: A unique number identifying the chemical contaminants.

3‐‐Analytical Methods: Method numbers identifying the methods that must be used to test the contaminants. For List 3, analyses will only be performed by

laboratories under contract to EPA.

4‐‐Minimum Reporting Level: The value and unit of measure at or above which the concentration of the contaminant must be measured using the approved

analytical methods. If EPA determines, after the first six months of monitoring, that the MRLs specified in UCMR 3 result in excessive resampling, EPA

will establish alternate MRLs and will notify affected PWSs and laboratories of the new MRLs. For List 3, minimum reporting level is based on volume

of water filtered and PCR amplification level.

[[Page 26100]]

5‐‐Sampling Location: The locations within a PWS at which samples must be collected.

6‐‐Period During Which Monitoring to be Completed: The time period during which the sampling and testing will occur for the indicated contaminant.

\a\ The analytical procedures shall be performed in accordance with the documents associated with each method, see paragraph (c) of this section.

\b\ The minimum reporting level (MRL) is the minimum concentration of each analyte that must be reported to EPA.

\c\ Sampling must occur at entry points to the distribution system (EPTDSs) after treatment is applied that represent each non‐emergency water source in

routine use over the 12‐month period of monitoring. Systems that purchase water with multiple connections from the same wholesaler may select one

representative connection from that wholesaler. This EPTDS sampling location must be representative of the highest annual volume connections. If the

connection selected as the representative EPTDS is not available for sampling, an alternate highest volume representative connection must be sampled.

See 40 CFR 141.35(c)(3) for an explanation of the requirements related to use of representative ground water EPTDSs. Sampling for total chromium,

chromium‐6, cobalt, molybdenum, strontium, vanadium, and chlorate must be conducted at distribution system maximum residence time (DSMRT) sampling

locations. DSMRT is defined as an active point (i.e., a location that currently provides water to customers) in the distribution system where the

water has been in the system the longest relative to the EPTDS.

\d\ Chromium‐6 will be measured as soluble chromate ion (CAS Registry Number 13907‐45‐4).

\e\ EPA will collect the samples from List 3 Pre‐Screen Testing sampling locations.

* * * * *

(4) * * *

(i) * * *

(B) Frequency. You must collect the samples within the time frame
and according to the frequency specified by contaminant type and water

source type for each sampling location, as specified in Table 2, in

this paragraph. For the second or subsequent round of sampling, if a

sample location is non‐operational for more than one month before and

one month after the scheduled sampling month (i.e., it is not possible

for you to sample within the window specified in Table 2, in this

paragraph), you must notify EPA as specified in Sec. 141.35(c)(5) to

reschedule your sampling.

Table 2‐‐Monitoring Frequency by Contaminant and Water Source Types

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Contaminant type Water source type Time frame Frequency

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Chemical.......................... Surface water or ground 12 months.................. You must monitor for 4

water under the direct consecutive quarters.

influence of surface Sample events must

water (GWUDI) occur 3 months apart.

(includes all sampling (Example: If first

locations for which monitoring is in

some or all of the January, the second

water comes from a monitoring must occur

surface water or GWUDI any time in April,

source at any time the third any time in

during the 12 month July and the fourth

monitoring period). any time in October.)

Ground water........... 12 months.................. You must monitor twice

in a consecutive 12‐

month period. Sample

events must occur 5‐7

months apart.

Microbiological................... Ground water........... 12 months.................. You must monitor twice

in a consecutive 12‐

month period. Sample

events must occur 5‐7

months apart.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

(C) Location. You must collect samples for each List 1 Assessment

Monitoring contaminant, and, if applicable, for each List 2 Screening

Survey, or List 3 Pre‐Screen Testing contaminant, as specified in Table

1, in paragraph (a)(3) of this section. Samples must be collected at

each sample point that is specified in column 5 and footnote c of Table

1, in paragraph (a)(3) of this section. If you are a ground water

system with multiple EPTDSs, and you request and receive approval from

EPA or the State for sampling at representative EPTDS(s), as specified

in Sec. 141.35(c)(3), you must collect your samples from the approved

representative sampling location(s). Systems conducting Assessment

Monitoring must also sample for total chromium, chromium‐6, cobalt,

molybdenum, strontium, vanadium, and chlorate at the location that

represents the maximum residence time in the distribution system

(DSMRT). DSMRT is defined as an active point (i.e., a location that

currently provides water to customers) in the distribution system where

the water has been in the system the longest relative to the EPTDS.

(ii) * * *

(G) Sampling forms. You must completely fill out each of the

sampling forms and bottles sent to you by the UCMR Sampling

Coordinator, including data elements listed in Sec. 141.35(e) for each

sample, as specified in Sec. 141.35(d)(2). You must sign and date the

sampling forms.

* * * * *

(5) * * *

(ii) * * * Correspondence must be addressed to: UCMR Laboratory

Approval Coordinator, USEPA, Technical Support Center, 26 West Martin

Luther King Drive, (MS 140), Cincinnati, OH 45268; or emailed to EPA

at: UCMR_Sampling_Coordinator@epa.gov.

(iii) Minimum Reporting Level. The MRL is an estimate of the

quantitation limit. Assuming good instrumentation and experienced

analysts, an MRL is achievable, with 95% confidence, by 75% of

laboratories nationwide.

(A) * * *

(1) All laboratories performing analysis under UCMR must

demonstrate that they are capable of meeting data quality objectives at

or below the MRL listed in Table 1, column 4, in paragraph (a)(3) of

this section.

* * * * *

(iv) Laboratory fortified sample matrix and laboratory fortified

sample matrix duplicate. You must ensure that your laboratory prepares

and analyzes the Laboratory Fortified Sample Matrix (LFSM) sample for

accuracy and Laboratory Fortified Sample Matrix Duplicate (LFSMD)

samples for precision to determine method accuracy and precision for

all contaminants in Table 1, in paragraph (a)(3) of this section. LFSM/

LFSMD samples must be prepared using a sample collected and analyzed in

accordance with UCMR requirements and analyzed at a frequency of 5% (or

1 LFSM/LFSMD set per every 20 samples) or with each sample batch,

whichever is more frequent. In addition, the LFSM/LFSMD fortification

concentrations must be alternated between a low‐level fortification and

mid‐level fortification

[[Page 26101]]

approximately 50% of the time. (For example: A set of 40 samples will

require preparation and analysis of 2 LFSM/LFSMD paired samples. The

first LFSM/LFSMD paired sample set must be fortified at either the low‐

level or mid‐level, and the second LFSM/LFSMD paired sample set must be

fortified with the other standard, either the low‐level or mid‐level,

whichever was not used for the initial LFSM/LFSMD paired sample set.)

The low‐level LFSM/LFSMD fortification concentration must be within
50% of the MRL for each contaminant (e.g., for an MRL of 1

[mu]g/L the acceptable fortification levels must be between 0.5 [mu]g/L

and 1.5 [mu]g/L). The mid‐level LFSM/LFSMD fortification concentration

must be within 20% of the mid‐level calibration standard

for each contaminant, and is to represent, where possible and where the

laboratory has data from previously analyzed samples, an approximate

average concentration observed in previous analyses of that analyte.

There are no UCMR contaminant recovery acceptance criteria specified

for LFSM/LFSMD analyses. All LFSM/LFSMD data are to be reported.

* * * * *

(vi) Reporting. You must require your laboratory to submit these

data electronically to the State and EPA using EPA's electronic data

reporting system, accessible at (http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/ucmr/ucmr3/reporting.cfm), within 120 days from the

sample collection date. You then have 60 days from when the laboratory

posts the data to review, approve and submit the data to the State and

EPA, via EPA's electronic data reporting system. If you do not

electronically approve and submit the laboratory data to EPA within 60

days of the laboratory posting data to EPA's electronic reporting

system, the data will be considered approved and available for State

and EPA review.

* * * * *

(c) Incorporation by reference. These standards are incorporated by

reference into this section with the approval of the Director of the

Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. All approved

material is available for inspection either electronically at

www.regulations.gov, in hard copy at the Water Docket, EPA/DC, and from

the sources below. The Public Reading Room (EPA West, Room 3334, 1301

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC) is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone

number for this Public Reading Room is (202) 566‐1744, and the

telephone number for the Water Docket is (202) 566‐2426. The material

is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records

Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this

material at NARA, call (202) 741‐6030 or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_0f_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

(1) The following methods from the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Water Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution

Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20004.

(i) EPA Method 200.8 ``Determination of Trace Elements in Waters

and Wastes by Inductively Coupled Plasma‐‐Mass Spectrometry,'' Revision

5.4, 1994, available at https://www.NEMI.gov.

(ii) EPA Method 218.7 ``Determination of Hexavalent Chromium in

Drinking Water by Ion Chromatography with Post‐Column Derivatization

and UV‐Visible Spectroscopic Detection,'' Version 1.0, November 2011,

EPA 815‐R‐11‐005, available at http://water.epa.gov/scitech/drinkingwater/labcert/analyticalmethods_ogwdw.cfm.

(iii) EPA Method 300.1 ``Determination of Inorganic Anions in

Drinking Water by Ion Chromatography,'' Revision 1.0, 1997, available

at http://water.epa.gov/scitech/drinkingwater/labcert/analyticalmethods_ogwdw.cfm.

(iv) EPA Method 522 ``Determination of 1,4‐Dioxane in Drinking

Water by Solid Phase Extraction (SPE) and Gas Chromatography/Mass

Spectrometry (GC/MS) with Selected Ion Monitoring (SIM),'' Version 1.0,

September 2008, EPA/600/R‐08/101, available at http://www.epa.gov/nerlcwww/ordmeth.htm.

(v) EPA Method 524.3 ``Measurement of Purgeable Organic Compounds

in Water by Capillary Column Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry,''

Version 1.0, June 2009, EPA 815‐B‐09‐009, available at http://water.epa.gov/scitech/drinkingwater/labcert/analyticalmethods_ogwdw.cfm.

(vi) EPA Method 537 ``Determination of Selected Perfluorinated

Alkyl Acids in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Liquid

Chromatography/Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC/MS/MS),'' Version 1.1,

September 2009, EPA/600/R‐08/092, available at http://www.epa.gov/nerlcwww/ordmeth.htm.

(vii) EPA Method 539 ``Determination of Hormones in Drinking Water

by Solid Phase Extraction (SPE) and Liquid Chromatography Electrospray

Ionization Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC‐ESI‐MS/MS),'' Version 1.0,

November 2010, EPA 815‐B‐10‐001, available at http://water.epa.gov/scitech/drinkingwater/labcert/analyticalmethods_ogwdw.cfm.

(2) The following methods from ``ASTM International,'' 100 Barr

Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428.

(i) ASTM D5673‐10 ``Standard Test Method for Elements in Water by

Inductively Coupled Plasma‐Mass Spectrometry,'' approved August 1,

2010. Available for purchase at http://www.astm.org/Standards/D5673.htm.

(ii) ASTM D6581‐08 ``Standard Test Methods for Bromate, Bromide,

Chlorate, and Chlorite in Drinking Water by Suppressed Ion

Chromatography,'' approved August 15, 2008. Available for purchase at

http://www.astm.org/Standards/D6581.htm.

(3) The following methods from ``Standard Methods for the

Examination of Water & Wastewater,'' 21st edition (2005), American

Public Health Association, 800 I Street NW., Washington, DC 20001‐3710.

(i) SM 3125 ``Metals by Inductively Coupled Plasma/Mass

Spectrometry.''

(ii) SM 4110D ``Determination of Anions by Ion Chromatography, Part

D, Ion Chromatography Determination of Oxyhalides and Bromide.''

PART 142‐‐NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS

IMPLEMENTATION

0

5. The authority citation for part 142 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g‐1, 300g‐2, 300g‐3, 300g‐4, 300g‐

5, 300g‐6, 300j‐4, 300j‐9, and 300j‐11.

Subpart B‐‐Primary Enforcement Responsibility

0

6. Section 142.16 is amended as follows:

0

a. In paragraph (j) introductory text by removing ``141.40,''.

0

b. In paragraph (j)(1) by revising the first sentence.
Sec. 142.16 Special primacy requirements.

* * * * *

(j) * * *

(1) If a State chooses to issue waivers from the monitoring

requirements in Sec. Sec. 141.23 and 141.24, the State shall describe

the procedures and criteria, that it will use to review waiver

applications and issue waiver determinations. * * *

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2012‐9978 Filed 5‐1‐12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560‐50‐P