Printed on Recycled Paper United States

Environmental Protection

Agency Office of W ater

4607 EP A 815-R-01-023

October 2001



# Refer ence Guide for

the Unr egulated

Contaminant Monitoring

RegulationUCMR Reference Guide October 2001

i 

## Foreword

Under §1445(a)(2)(A) of the Safe Drinking W ater Act (SDW

A), as amended in 1996, the

Environmental Protection Agency (EP A) is required to establish criteria for a program to monitor

unregulated contaminants and to publish a list of contaminants to be monitored. In response to this requirement, EP

A published the revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Mon itoring Regulation

(UCMR) for public water systems (PWSs) on September 17, 1 999 (64 FR 50556), and in supplemental rules, including the Perchlorate and Acetochlor Rule (March 2, 2000

- 65 FR 1 1372),

and the List 2 Rule (January 1 1, 2001 - 66 FR 2273). EP A expects to publish other rules detailing

minor modifications to the UCMR prog ram and List 3 monitoring requirements and analytical methods,

as needed.

This document was designed to provide an overview of the revised UCMR. It is intended to integrate

the most essential elements of the UCMR, and to provide a reference guide to the UCMR guidance

documents and UCMR rules published by EP A. This document briefly describes the three-tiered monitoring approach to the UCMR, monitoring schedules, reporting requirements, and the roles and

responsibilities of States, EP A Regions, and PWSs in UCMR implementation. Note that this document

does not explain all UCMR Program requirements in detail. Where more detailed and comprehensive

information is available through othe r EP A guidance documents, the reader is referred to these

documents.UCMR Reference Guide October 2001

iiUCMR Reference Guide October 2001

iii 

## Acknowledgments

This document was prepared in support of the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation

(UCMR) for EP

A’s Office of Ground W

ater and Drinking W

ater . Charles Job served as EP A’s

team leader for development of the UCMR with James T aft as T argeting and Analysis Branch Chief. Rachel Sakata and Phyllis Branson served as W ork Assignment Managers. The UCMR

W ork Group provided technical guidance throughout. External expert reviewers and many stakeholders provided valuable advice to improve the UCMR and this document. The Cadmus

Group, Inc., served as the prime contractor for developing this document.UCMR Reference Guide October 2001

ivUCMR Reference Guide October 2001

v 

## T able of Contents

Foreword

.................................................................... i

Acknowledgments

............................................................. iii

1. Introduction

................................................................ 1

1.1 Purpose and Background

.................................................. 1 1.2 Overview of the UCMR Program

........................................... 2

2. Affected Entities and Their Responsibilities

...................................... 13 2.1 Large Public W

ater Systems

.............................................. 13

2.1.1 Assessment Monitoring

.............................................. 13 2.1.2 Screening Surveys

................................................. 13

2.1.3 Pre-Screen T

esting

................................................. 14

2.2 Small Public W

ater Systems

.............................................. 14 2.2.1 Assessment Monitoring

.............................................. 14

2.2.2 Screening Surveys

................................................. 15

2.2.3 Pre-Screen T

esting

................................................. 16

2.3 Index Systems

......................................................... 16

2.4 State and T

ribal Participation

............................................. 17

3. Contaminants to be Monitored

................................................. 19 3.1 Assessment Monitoring

.................................................. 19

3.2 Screening Surveys

...................................................... 19

3.3 Pre-Screen T

esting

...................................................... 20

3.4 W ater Quality Parameters

................................................ 20

4. Sample Collection and Analysis for UCMR (1999) Contaminants

..................... 23

4.1 Large Public W

ater Systems

.............................................. 23

4.2 Small Public W

ater Systems

.............................................. 23

5. General Monitoring Requirements

.............................................. 25 5.1 Monitoring Frequency and Sampling Location

................................ 25

5.2 General Quality Control Requirements

...................................... 27

5.3 Quality Control Requirements for Sample Collection

........................... 32 5.3.1 Quality Control Requirements for Sample Collection:

Additional Requirements Specific to Large Systems

......................... 32 5.3.2 Quality Control Requirements for Sample Collection:

Additional Requirements Specific to Small Systems

......................... 33

5.3.3 Quality Control Requirements for Laboratories

........................... 34 5.3.4 Additional Quality Controls

.......................................... 34

6. UCMR Reporting Requirements

............................................... 35

6.1 Data Elements

......................................................... 35

6.2 Electronic Reporting and Data Review

...................................... 38

6.3 Public Notification

..................................................... 39

7. State Responsibilities

....................................................... 41

7.1 State Plan Development

.................................................. 41UCMR Reference Guide October 2001

vi 7.2 Partnership Agreements

.................................................. 41

7.3 State W

aivers for Contaminants Monitored at Large Systems

..................... 42

7.4 Governors’ Petition to Add Contaminants to the Monitoring List

.................. 42

8. Participation of T

ribal Public W

ater Systems

..................................... 43

8.1 T ribal Monitoring Plan Development

....................................... 43 8.2 Sample Collection Responsibility

.......................................... 43

9. EP A Responsibilities

........................................................ 45

9.1 Partnership Agreements and State Monitoring Plan Development

.................. 45

9.2 Sample Collection and Analysis

........................................... 45 9.3 Reviewing Analytical Results and Reporting Requirements

...................... 45

10. Contact Information

........................................................ 47

APPENDICES Appendix A — Acronym List

.............................................. A - 1

Appendix B — Definitions

................................................. B - 1 Appendix C — Number of Small Systems in Representative Sample, by State

......... C - 1



## List of Figures

Figure 1. Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Approach

............................... 7
Figure 2. UCMR (1999) Implementation T imeline and Related Activities

.................. 8



## List of T ables

T able 1. UCMR (1999) List 1 Contaminants

......................................... 3

T able 2. UCMR (1999) List 2 Contaminants

......................................... 4

T able 3. UCMR (1999) List 3 Contaminants

......................................... 5

T able 4. T otal Number of Small Systems in National Representative Sample to Conduct Assessment Monitoring (by Size, T ype, and W

ater Source)

................ 15

T able 5. W ater Quality Parameters to be Monitored with

UCMR Microbiological Contaminants

...................................... 20

T able 6. Monitoring Frequency by Contaminant and W ater Source T

ypes

.................. 26

T able 7. Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List 1

................... 27

T able 8. Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List 2

................... 30

T able 9. UCMR Reporting Requirements

.......................................... 35UCMR Reference Guide October 2001

1 

## 1. Introduction

1.1 Purpose and Background

The requirement to monitor unregulated contaminants was established by the 1986 Amendments to the

Safe Drinking W

ater Act (SDW

A). Public water systems (PWSs) were required to report the monitoring results for up to 48 unregulated contaminants to the States or primacy agency under several

regulati ons (40 CFR 141.40(e), (j), and (n)(1 1 )

- (12)). Systems with less than 150 service

co nnections were exempt, provided those systems made their facilities available for the States to

monitor

.

Under §1445(a)(2)(A) of the SDW A, as amended in 1996, the United States Environmental Protection

Agency (EP

A) was required to establish criteria for a program to monitor for unregulated contaminants and to publish a list of contaminants to be monitored. T o fulfill the requirements of the

SDW A, EP A published the Revisions to the Unregu l ated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (UCMR)

for PWSs on September 17, 1999 (64 FR 50556). This regulation included programmatic changes to

the UCM R and provided a list of contaminants for which monitoring was required, or would be

required in the future. The UCMR set up a three-tiered approach to monitoring for contaminants based on the availability of analytical methods and insights on contaminant properties, as well as fate and

transport. In response to public comments, and as relevant analytical methods were refined and

developed, EP

A published the Perchlorate and Acetochlor Rule on March 2, 2000 (65 FR 1 1372) and

the List 2 Rule on January 1 1, 2001 (66 FR 2273). As EP A continues to refine and develop additional

methods and/or identify minor clarifications or modifications need ed for the successful implementation of the UCMR, the Agency will provide additional guidance documents or fact sheets

and will promulgate additional rules, as necessary

.

The UCMR program was developed in coordination with the Candidate Contaminant List (CCL) and

the National Drinking W

ater Contaminant Occurrence Database (NCOD). The UCMR and the CCL

operate on a 5-year cycle to assess the impact of new and emerging drinking water contaminants. The

revised UCMR program is a cornerstone of the sound science approach to future drinking water

regulation. The data collected through the UCMR program will be stored in the NCOD to facilitate analysis or review of contaminant occurrence, to guide the development of subsequent CCLs, and to

support the Administrator’s determination of whether or not to regulate a contaminant in the interest of protecting public health.

The S DW A provisions and EP

A regulations which are described in this document contain legally binding requirements. This document does not substitute for those provisions or regulations, nor is

it a regulation itself. It does not impose legally-binding requirements on EP A

, States, or the regulated community

, and may not apply to a particular situation based upon the circumstances. EP A and State

decisionmakers retain the discretion to adopt approaches on a case-by-case basis that differ from this

guidance where appropriate. Any decisions regarding a particular facility will be made based on the applicable statutes and regulations. Therefore, interested parties are free to raise questions and

objections about the appropriateness of the application of this guidance to a particular situation, and

EP A will consider whether or not the recommendations or interpretations in the guidance are

appropriate in that situation based on the law and regulations. EP A may change this guidance in the

future without notice or an opportunity for comment. Mention of trade names or commercial products

does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.UCMR Reference Guide October 2001

2 1.2 Overview of the UCMR Program

EP A regulates many drinking water contaminants which are known to pose a risk to human health.

There are, however , many other potential contaminants which are not currently regulated because of

a lack of information regarding contamin ant occurrence or potential health effects of such

contaminants. Further

, there are many new , emerging, or reemerging contaminants that may also need

to be evaluated for their occurrence in drinkin g water . T

o address the lack of information on the

occurrence of some of these contaminants, in 1999, EP A promulgated the new UCMR program (40

CFR §§141.35, 141.40, and 142.15(c)(3)), replacing the previous unregulated contaminan t monitoring

regulation. In addition, EP A published a Direct Final Rule in the January 8, 1999 Federal Register

(64 FR 1493) that suspended the third round of t he existing unregulated contaminant monitoring

program for small PWSs (systems serving less than or equal to 10,000 persons). However , large

PWSs (syste ms serving more than 10,000 persons) were still required to monitor under 40 CFR

§§141.35 and 141.40 for the existing unregulated contaminant monitoring program through January 1,

2001, completing their latest round of that monitoring.

EP A evaluated the availability of analytical methods published by EP A and vol u ntary consensus

standard organizations such as t he American Society for T e sting and Materials (ASTM), the Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC), and the American Public Health Association

(APHA) for all of the unregulated contaminants considered for the UCMR. Based on the availability

of analytical methods for each unregulated contaminant, EP A developed a tiered monitoring approach comprised of three distinct components.

The first component of the UCMR is Assessment Monitoring, which will be conducted by all of the

approximately 2,800 large community water systems (CWSs) and non-transient non-community water

systems (NTNCWSs) serving more than 10,000 persons, and by a statistically representative sample

of 800 small CWSs and NTNCWSs serving 10,000 or fewer persons (except those systems that

purchase all of their water from another PWS). Assessment Monitoring will be conducted for the

UCMR (1999) List 1 contaminants, where analytical methods have alread y been developed and

refined. T able 1 lists the contaminants to be monitored, and their environmental sources.UCMR Reference Guide October 2001

3 T able 1. UCMR (1999) List 1 Contaminants

Contaminant Name Environmental Source

2,4-dinitrotoluene (2,4-

DNT) Used in the production of isocyanate, dyes, and explosives

2,6-dinitrotoluene (2,6-

DNT) Used as mixture with 2,4-DNT (similar uses)

Acetochlor Herbicide used with cabbage, citrus, coffee, and corn crops

DCP A di-acid degradate Degradation product of DCP A; an herbicide used on grasses and weeds with fruit

and vegetable crops

DCP A mono-acid degradate Degradation product of DCP A; an herbicide used on grasses and weeds with fruit and vegetable crops

4,4'-dichloro dichlorophenyl

ethylene (4,4'-DDE) Degradation product of DDT ; a general insecticide

EPTC Herbicide used on grasses and weeds, with potatoes and corn

Molinate Selective herbicide used with rice; controls watergrass

Methyl-tert-butyl-ether

(MTBE) Octane booster in unleaded gasoline

Nitrobenzene Used in the production of aniline, w hich is used to make dyes, herbicides, and

drugs

Perchlorate Oxygen additive in solid fuel propellant for rockets, missiles and fireworks

T erbacil Herbicide used with sugarcane, alfalfa, and fruit crops

Note: UCMR (1999) List 1 contaminants are required to be monitored under the Assessment Monitoring

component of the revised UCMR. For more information on Assessment Monitoring, please refer to the final

UCMR Preamble and Rule (64 FR 50556), and the Perchlorate and Acetochlor Rule (65 FR 1 1372). Please refer to Appendix A for a list of acronyms and Appendix B for definitions.

The second component of the UCMR includes Screening Survey monitoring for the List 2 contaminants

for which analytical methods have been developed, but may need to be further refined before largescale Assessment Monitoring is conducted. Each Screening Survey will be conducted at 300 PWSs

(120 large PWSs and 120 small PWSs) randomly selected from the pool of systems required to

conduct Assessment Monitoring. T a ble 2 lists the contaminants to be monitored and their

environmental sources.UCMR Reference Guide October 2001

4 T able 2. UCMR (1999) List 2 Contaminants

Contaminant Name Environmental Source

1,2-diphenylhydrazine Used in the production of benzidine and anti-inflammatory drugs

2-methylphenol Released in automobile and diesel exhaust, coal tar and petroleum refining, and

wood pulping

2,4-dichlorophenol Chemical intermediate in herbicide production

2,4-dinitrophenol Released from mines, metal, and petroleum plants

2,4,6-trichlorophenol By-product of fossil fuel burning, used as bactericide and wood/glue

preservative

Alachlor ESA Degradation product of alachlor and other acetanilide pesticides, herbicides used with corn, bean, peanut, and soybean crops to control grasses and weeds

Diazinon Insecticide used with rice, fruit, vineyards, and corn crops

Disulfoton Insecticide used with cereal, cotton, tobacco, and potato crops

Diuron Herbicide used on grasses in orchards and with wheat crops

Fonofos Soil insecticide used on worms and centipedes

Linuron Herbicide used with corn, soybean, cotton, and wheat crops

Nitrobenzene (low levels) Used in the production of aniline, which is used to make dyes, herbicides, and

drugs

Prometon Herbicide used on annual and perennial weeds and grasses

RDX Used in explosives; ammunition plants

T erbufos Insecticide used with corn, sugar beet, and grain sorghum crops

Microbiological Contaminant

Aer omonas Present in all freshwater and brackish water

Note: UCMR (1999) List 2 contaminants are required to be monitored under the Screening Survey component of

the revised UCMR. For more information on Screening Surveys, please refer to the final UCMR List 2 Rule

(66 FR 2273). Refer to Appendix A for a list of acronyms and Appendix B for definitions.

The third component of the UCMR is Pre-Screen T esting, which will be conducted at up to 200 large

and small PWSs. States will be asked to nominate systems that are particularly vulnerable to the PreScreen T esting contaminants. Pre-Screen T esting may be conducted for some of the UCMR (1999)

List 3 contaminants for which analytical methods are in the initial stages of development. T a ble 3 lists

the contaminants that may be monitored and their environmental sources.UCMR Reference Guide October 2001

5 T able 3. UCMR (1999) List 3 Contaminants

Contaminant Name Environmental Source

Adenoviruses Fecal or hand to mouth transmission

Cyanobacteria (blue-green

algae, other freshwater algae,

and their toxins) Bloom in surface water bodies; produce toxins

Caliciviruses Contaminated food and water; raw shellfish

Coxsackieviruses Fecal or hand to mouth transmission

Echoviruses Fecal or hand to mouth transmission

Helicobacter pylori Fecal or hand to mouth transmission

Microsporidia Occur in rivers, ponds, lakes, and unfiltered water

Lead-210 A lead isotope and radionuclide; part of the uranium decay series; naturally

occurring

Polonium-210 A polonium isotope and radionuclide; part of the uranium decay series;

naturally occurring

Note: UCMR (1999) List 3 contaminants are required to be monitored under the Pre-Screen T esting component

of the revised UCMR. EP A is conducting analytical methods development for UCMR (1999) List 3

contaminants. For more information on Pre-Screen T e sting, refer to the final UCMR Preamble and Rule (64 FR 50555). Refer to Appendix A for a list of acronyms and Appendix B for definitions.

EP A also selec ted 30 small PWSs (PWSs serving 10,000 or fewer persons) to serve as Index

Systems. Index Systems will conduct Assessment Monitoring each year of the 5-year UCMR cycle to provide additional programmatic and data quality control. The monitoring data that EP A (or its

contractors) will collect for Index Systems will provide information on temporal variations in

contaminant occurrence. Information on the environmental and operating conditions of these 30 systems will also be collected. The detailed information from the Index Systems, together with the

monitoring data genera ted through the three UCMR monitoring components, will enable EP A to develop future regulations that better reflect the environmental characteristics and o perating conditions

of the approximately 65,000 small PWSs.

General monitoring schedules are related to the type of monitoring (Assessment Monitoring, Screening

Survey

, or Pre-Screen T

esting) being conducted. Each participating system must conduct Assessment Monitoring of UCMR (1999) List 1 contaminants for a 12-month period in the first three years (2001

through 2003) of the 5-year UCMR contaminant listing cycl e (2001-2005), as per

§141.40(a)(5)(ii)(B). Randomly selected large systems will sample for the UCMR (1999) List 2

contaminants in 2002 (for chemical contaminants) and 2003 (for the microbiological contaminant,

Aer omonas ), while small systems will sample in 2001 and 2003, respectively . No time-frame has

been established yet for Pre-Screen T esting of the UCMR (1999) List 3 contaminants, but it would

likely be conducted in 2004 or in the next UCMR 5-year listing cycle. W i thin this general timeframe,UCMR Reference Guide October 2001

6 UCMR monitoring schedules may be varied by the States or EP A to allow coordination of UCMR monitoring with compliance monitoring whenever possible.

Fig ures 1 and 2 provide a summary of the UCMR three-tiered monitoring approach, illustrate the

interrelation of the UCMR program compo nents, and show the implementation timeline of UCMR

activities. For identification of terms used throughout this guidance document, please see Appendix A for a list of acronyms and Appendix B for a list of definitions.

EP A will dir ectly implement the UCMR, with State participation through Partnership Agreements

(P As) with EP

A. The Agency will pay for the testing and shipping costs of Assessment Monitoring

for the representative sample of the 800 randomly selected small PWSs. EP A will also pay for the testing and shipping costs of samples for the small PWSs participating in the Screening Surveys and

Pre-Screen T

esting components of the UCMR prog ram. However , EP

A will not pay for any monitoring activities for large systems participating in the UCMR.UCMR Reference Guide October 2001

7 Assessment Monitoring

List 1 (1999)

Contaminants

Quarterly for surface

water systems, and

2 times, 5 to 7 months

apart for ground water

systems for 1 year, during

2001-2003 7 or more Governors may petition EPA to add

contaminants to list

State

PWS Reporting

Electronically

16 Data

Elements State Monitoring

Plan for

Representative

Sample EPA UCMR

List

up to 30

contaminants

EPA Pays

for small systems

in Plan, including

Pre-Screen Testing Public

Notification,

Consumer

Confidence

Report EPA

National

Drinking

Water

Contaminant

Occurrence

Database

Two Screening

Survey(s) for

List 2 (1999)

Contaminants

300 randomly selected

systems in each

Screening Survey State may apply to

EPA for

contaminant

monitoring waiver

State-EPA

Partnership

Agreement for

Implementation

All large systems

Representative

Sample of 800

small systems

randomly selected

by EPA Figure 1: Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring ApproachUCMR Reference Guide October 2001

8 UCMR Issued,

Guidance

Available

Next Candidate

Contaminant

List Issued

Next UCMR

List Issued Analyze Results

National

Drinking Water

Contaminant

Occurrence

Database

Operational 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

UCMR (1999): IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE

Programmatic Activities

Monitoring Activities

Screening Surveys

List 2 (1999) Contaminants Assessment Monitoring

List 1 (1999) Contaminants

All large and 800 small PWSs

Index System Monitoring

30 small PWSs

Screening

Survey

Chemical

(180 small

PWSs only) Screening

Survey

Chemical

(120 large

PWSs only) Screening

Survey

Micro

(300 large

and small

PWSs ) EPA Contract

Laboratories

Operational

(for small

systems) State PAs and

State Plans

Developed:

Inform PWSs Representative

Sample Selected

UCMR (1999)

List 2 Rule

Promulgated Perchlorate

, Acetochlor

Methods

Approved Assess Data Quality Figure 2: UCMR (1999) Implementation Timeline and Related ActivitiesUCMR Reference Guide October 2001

9 This document provides a general overview of the UCMR program, including a description of how

PWSs, States, and the EP

A are affected by this regulation, and the responsibilities each party has in

implementing the UCMR. This document contains a list of all contaminants to be monitored under the

UCMR and describes the contaminant monitoring, analysis, and reporting process. It includes the

following s ections: Affected Entities and Their Responsibilities (Section 2), Contaminants to be

Monitored (Section 3), Sample Collection and Analysis (Section 4), General Moni t oring Requirements (Section 5), UCMR Reporting Requirements (Section 6), State Responsibility (Section

7), T ribal Responsibility (Section 8), EP A Responsibility (Section 9), and Contact Information

(Section 10). Further information about the UCMR program can be found in the UCMR Preamble and

final Rule (64 FR 50556), the Perchlorate and Acetochlor Rule (65 FR 1 1372), the List 2 Rule (66

FR 2273), and UCMR guidance documents.

The documents listed below present detailed information on UCMR program requirements for PWSs,

States, and EP

A Regions who are res ponsible for UCMR program planning, implementation, and

oversight.

Please note: B ecause of the evolving natur e of the UCMR pr

ogram, supplemental rule-making

efforts may add additional contaminants to be monitor ed and hence, additional sampling and
analytical pr

oce dur es may need to be identified. For this r e ason, EP A will issue supplemental

guidance explaining any new r equir ements. EP

A anticipates developing supplemental guidance

after analytical methods ar e appr oved for monitoring the UCMR (1999) List 2 and 3 contaminants in subsequent rules.

Background Documents

1. T echnical Background Information for the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation

EP A 815-R-99-007

This document summarizes the pr o cess used to select contaminants for the UCMR List

(1999) and a brief summary of the CCL selection pr ocess. This document also pr o vides an

overview of the pr

oposed methods for monitoring UCMR contaminants.

2. Statistical Design and Sampl e Selection for the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring

Regulation (1999)

EP A 815-R-01-004

This document r

eplaces National Repr

esentative Sample of Small Public W ater Systems:

Statistical Design and State Plans for Unr egulated Contaminant Monitoring, EP A 815-R99-003. It describes the way in which the sample of small PWSs was selected for

participation in the UCMR Assessment Monit o ring. This document also describes the
selection pr

ocess for Scr

eening Survey

, the pr obable selection pr

ocess for the Pr

e-Scr een

T esting systems, and briefly describes how Index Systems wer e selected.

Guidance Documents

1. UCMR (1999) List 1 and List 2 Chemical Analytical Methods Quality Control Manual

EP A 815-R-01-028

This document r

eplaces the UCMR Analytical Methods and Quality Contr ol Manual and
Supplements, and adds the new analytical methods quality contr ol (QC) information fr

om UCMR (1999) List 2.UCMR Reference Guide October 2001

10 2. Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation Guidance fo r Operators of Public W a ter Systems Serving 10,000 or Fewer People

EP A 815-R-01-002

Thi s document identifies the sampling and r e porting r esponsibilities of small PWSs selected

to participate in the Assessment Monitoring component of the UCMR. This guidance also

highlights important changes in the UCMR which r educe the monetary and administrative

bur den on small systems.

Please Note: A draft of this document was r eleased for public comment as EP A 815-R-99-

005, and a subsequent final document was r elease with the number EP A 815-R-00-018.

This final guidance document is being r eleased with the number EP A 815-R-01-002, and

r eplaces the pr

evious versions.

3. Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation Reporting Guidance

EP A 815-R-01-029

This document will pr

ovide general guidance to PWS s, States, and EP A Regions on

r eporting r

equir ements for the r

esults of contaminant monitoring, and inventory

information for the UCMR

.

4. Implementation Guide for Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule:

V olume I – Introduction to CDX and UCMR Submission

V olume II – W

eb Forms

V olume III – [not r

elevant to UCMR]

V olume IV – XML Standards for Submitting Data

V olume V – Flat File Format

Forthcoming

This five volume document pr ovides detailed information on how to use the EP A Central

Data Exchange and the Safe Drinking W ater Accession and Review System for the UCMR.
This guidance is available on the W eb at: http://epacdx.lmi.or g/F AQ.asp

.

Fact Sheets

1. Unregulated Contaminant Mon itoring Regulation: Monitoring for List 1 Contaminants by Large

Public W ater Systems

EP A 815-F-01-003

This is a fact sheet for lar ge public water systems which pr ovides a brief overview of their

r esponsibilities in implementing the Assessment Monitoring portion of the UCMR.

2. Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation: Monitoring for List 1 Contaminants by

Small Public W

ater Systems

EP A 815-F-01-004

This is a fact sheet for small public water systems which pr ovides a brief overview of their

r esponsibilities in implementing the Assessment Monitoring portion of the UCMR.

3. Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation: Screening Survey for List 2 Contaminants

by Selected Large Public W ater Systems

EP A 815-F-01-005

This is a fact sheet for lar ge public water systems which pr ovides a brief overview of their

r esponsibilities in implementing the Scr eening Survey portion of the UCMR.UCMR Reference Guide October 2001

11 4. Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation: Screening Survey for List 2 Contaminants by Selected Small Public W ater Systems

EP A 815-F-01-006

This is a fact sheet for small public water systems which pr ovides a brief overview of their

r esponsibilities in implementing the Scr eening Survey portion of the UCMR.

5. Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation: Monitoring by Index Systems

EP A 815-F-01-007

Thi s is a fact sheet for Index Systems which pr o vides a brief overview of their

r esponsibilities in implementing the UCMR

.

The documents listed above with document numbers are available through the EP A Safe Drinking

W ater Hotline at (800) 426-4791, or at EP A’s UCMR W ebsite:

http://www .epa.gov/safewater/ucmr .html

. Note that the guidance documents above generally outline

the sampling and reporting responsibilities f or the Assessment Monitoring, and Screening Survey

components of the UCMR (1999). EP A will issue further guidance on Pre-Screen T e sting

requirements and responsibilities after the List 3 rule is promulgated.UCMR Reference Guide October 2001

12UCMR Reference Guide October 2001

13 

## 2. Affected Entities and Their Responsibilities

2.1 Large Public W

ater Systems

2.1.1 Assessment Monitoring

All large CWSs and NTNCWSs are required to conduct UCMR Assessment Monitoring including

contaminant sampling, analysis, and reporting (§141.40(a)(ii)). Large systems are those serving greater than 10,000 persons. CWSs are PWSs which serve at least 15 service connections used by

year-round residents or regularly serve at least 25 year round residents. NTNCWSs are PWSs which

are not CWSs, and that regularly serve at least 25 of the same persons over six months per year

. T ransient non-community water systems (TNCWSs), systems that do not regularly serve at least 25

of the same persons over six months per year , are not required to monitor under the UCMR. Large

syst ems that purchase a ll of their water from other PWSs are also not required to monitor for the

Assessment Monitoring or Screening Survey portion of the UCMR (§141.40(a)(iii)). However , some PWSs that purchase water from a PWS selected to monitor for Aer omonas may be asked to collect

a distribution system sample. All of the 2,800 large PWSs will be included in the UCMR Assessment

Monitoring.

Sample collection responsibilities are discussed in Section 4, general monitoring requirements are

discussed in Section 5, and reviewing and reporting responsibilities are discussed in Section 6.

2.1.2 Screening Surveys

The Screening Survey component for large PWSs (§141.40(a)(ii) and §141.40(a)(iii)) is currently

divided into two phases, a Screening Survey for chemical contaminants and a Screening Survey for microbiological contaminants. One hundred and twenty (120) randomly selected large PWSs will be

required to conduct monitoring for the Screening Survey List 2 chemical contaminants during 2002.

A different group of 120 large PWSs will be required to conduct monitoring for the Screening Survey

List 2 microbiological contaminant Aer omonas during 2003. Each Screening Survey was targeted to

consist of 60 systems serving more than 50,000 persons and 60 systems serving from 10,001 to 50,000 persons. The large Screening Survey Systems are further subdivided by water source type (targeted

to be 30 ground water and 30 surface water systems). Since there were too few small surface water

systems, and too few large ground water systems, the number of systems had to be re-allocated to

small ground water and large surface water systems. These Screening Survey systems were selected

from the pool of systems conducting Assessment Monitoring. Note that some PWSs which purchase water from a system selected to monitor for Aer omonas may be asked to collect distribution system

samples. EP

A has already identified the randomly selected large systems that will monitor for List 2 contaminants, and has placed this list on its W eb site at

http://www .epa.gov/safewater/standard/ucmr/systems.html

.

Depending on the terms of P As developed by EP

A and the States, either EP A or the State may have

notified large PWSs of their requirements to monitor for Screening Surveys (see section 7 for more

information on the development of P As). Selected large PWSs are responsible for Screening Survey

sampling in 2002 for UCMR (1999) List 2 chemical contaminants, or for Screening Survey sampling

for Aer omonas in 2003. Large systems may coordinate Assessment Monitoring with Screening Survey monitoring by collecting samples at the same time. Note, however , that all Screening Survey samples

for List 2 chemical contaminants must be collected from the entry points to the distribution systemUCMR Reference Guide October 2001

14 (EPTDS), and not raw water sources (§141.40(a)(7)). This ensures that Screening Survey analytical

results may be used to provide an accurate estimation o f frequency of contaminant occurrence in

finished drinking water sources nationwide.

2.1.3 Pre-Screen T

esting

For the Pre-Screen T

esting component, up to 200 systems (including both large and small systems)

may be selected to conduct UCMR List 3 monitoring (§§141.40(a)(ii) and 141.40(a)(iii)). Pre-Screen

T esting may be conducted for contaminants on the UCMR (1999) List 3 whose analytical methods are

in the early stages of devel opment. The Pre-Screen T e sting systems will be selected by EP A or States, based on the system’s vulnerability to the UCMR (1999) List 3 contaminants. The goal of this monitoring is to determine whether the List 3 contaminants can be found in any public water system

under contaminant-specific, most-likely-occurrence conditions. Thus, this tier of UCMR monitoring

is not designed to determine the extent of occurrence, but rather to test for appropriateness and validity

of analytical method s that might be used in a broader monitoring effort (i.e., a future round of

Assessment Monitoring). Note that the systems which would be selected to monitor for Pre-Screen

T esting contaminants may or may not be the same systems conducting Assessment Monitoring or Screening Survey Monitoring. Pre-Screen T esting will begin after EP

A promulgates the List 3 rule.

More complete details on the definition of vulnerability and the vulnerable system selection process will be provided in future guidance from EP A.

EP A or the State will notify the large systems which have been selected to monitor for UCMR (1999)

List 3 contaminants. Large systems will be responsible for collecting their own samples, sending the samples to an EP

A-specified laboratory

, and reporting the results to EP A with a copy to the S tate (§141.40(a)(7)(i) and (ii)). EP A will provide further guidance on Pre-Screen T e sting, and large PWS

responsibility before Pre-Screen T esting requirements begin (§141.40(a)(7)(i)).

2.2 Small Public W

ater Systems

2.2.1 Assessment Monitoring

Section 1445(a)(2) of SDW A mandates that only a representative sample of small PWSs be required

to monitor for unregulated contaminants. A group of 800 small CWSs and NTNCWSs was selected

from the total number of approximately 66,000 small systems nationwide to monitor for the UCMR.

The process used to select this subset of small systems was designed to provide a statistically valid,

nationally representative sample of the nation’s small PWSs serving 10,000 or fewer people. Only

the small CWSs and NTNCWSs that are notified by their State or EP A will be required to participate

in UCMR sampling. TNCWSs are not required to monitor under the UCMR.

Through its specified contractor , EP A will provide all 800 participating small systems with

instructions to collect samples. The overall program is designed to minimize the burden to the small systems selected to monitor . Most significantly , EP A will pay for the cost of shipping and analyzing

these samples.

T o ensure that the 800 small systems included in the natio nal representative sample adequately

represent the total population of small PWSs, the sample was stratified based on population served,

source water type (ground water or surface water), and geographic locatio n (i.e., State). Small

systems were then randomly selected within these stratifications to ensure that at least two systems

were selected in each State (except in Guam, where there was only one active small system eligibleUCMR Reference Guide October 2001

15 for UCMR monitoring). For more information on the statistical design of the national representative sample, please refer to the document entitled Statistical Des i gn and Sample Selection for the

Unr egulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) , EP A 815-R-01-004. T able 4 shows the

number of s mall systems that were selected to monitor for UCMR (1999) List 1 contaminants by

system size and source of water

. Appendix C shows the number of small systems selected to monitor

for List 1 contaminants in each State.

T able 4. T otal Number of Small Systems in National Representative Sample to Conduct

Assessment Monitoring (by Size, T ype, and W

ater Source)

Population CWS NTNCWS

T otal Ground

W ater Surface

W ater CWS T

otal Ground

W ater Surface

W ater NTNCWS

T otal

25-500 76 45 121 36 8 44 165

501-3300 214 39 253 30 7 37 290

3,301-10,000 231 105 336 4 5 9 345

T otal 521 189 710 70 20 90 800

Small systems are responsible for properly storing, maintaining, and using the sampling equi pment sent

out by the EP

A contractor

, collecting water samples, and sending the samples to the EP A-specified

laboratory to be analyzed (§141.40(a)(4)(i)(A), (5)(iii)(B) and (5)(iii)(H)). In some cases, States

may elect to conduct the sampling, especially in those that currently collect water samples for regulated contaminant compliance monitoring. States may inform small PWSs of their responsibilities,

depending on the terms of individual State P As (see Section 7).

2.2.2 Screening Surveys

One hundred and eighty small systems will be required to conduct monitoring for the Screening Survey

for List 2 chemical contaminants in 2001. A different group of small systems will be required to

conduct monitoring for the Screening Survey for Aer omonas in 2003. The small Screening Survey

systems were randomly selected from the pool of small systems scheduled to conduct Assessment

Monitoring in that same year

. Thus, if a system was selected to monitor for UCMR (1999) List 1

contaminants in 2001, that system was only eligible to be selected for the Screening Survey in 2001.

Monitoring years were selected in this manner so that Assessment Monitoring an d the Screening
Survey for List 2 chemical contaminants could be coordinated for each small system. Each Screening

Survey was targeted to consist of 60 systems from each of the following service size categories: 25

to 500 persons, 501 to 3,300 persons, and 3,301 to 10,000 persons. The number of systems selected

in each size category was further stratified by source water type (ground water or surface water).

EP A has already identified the Screening Survey Systems for each State. These systems are found in each UCMR State Monitoring Plan for small systems.UCMR Reference Guide October 2001

16 Small PWSs selected to monitor for the Screening Surveys may be notified by their State or EP A, depending upon the terms of individual State P As. Sampling for the Screening Survey for List 2

chemical contaminants in 2001 will be collected at the same frequency as for Assessment Monitoring

to minimize the burden of sample collection (§141.40(a)(7)). Systems selected to participate in the

Screening Survey for Aer

omonas will collect samples from three sites within the distribution system.

The Screening Survey for Aer omonas will not be able to be conducted entirely at the same time as Assessment Monitoring in 2003, since the samples must be collected from different locations and at

different frequencies.

The EP A-specified contractor will review the sampling results, and the EP A-specified laboratories

will report the analytical results for small PWSs. Small systems are still responsible for ensuring that

a copy of the results are reported to the State, and for ensuring compliance with any other applicable

State reporting requirements.

2.2.3 Pre-Screen T

esting

Up to 200 large and small PWSs will be selected for Pre-Screen T esting. Systems that are most

vulnerable to the particular UCMR (1999) List 3 contaminants will be identified by States or EP A for

Pre-Screen T

esting. List 3 contaminants are those whose analytical methods are in the early stages

of development. States or EP A may select systems outside of the 800 selected for Assessment

Monitoring for this targeted testing. More complete details on the definition of vulnerability and the

vulnerable system selection process will be provided in future guidance from EP A, once the List 3

rule is promulgated.

EP A or the State may notify the small systems which have been se lected to monitor for these

contaminants, depending on the terms of individual State P As. For small systems, EP A pays for the cost of sample shipping, analysis, and reporting. EP A will report the results of Pre-Screen T e sting

for t he small systems. EP

A will provide further guidance on Pre-Screen T e sting, and small PWS responsibility before small systems will be required to monitor for Pre-Screen T esting contaminants

(§141.40(a)(7)(ii)).

2.3 Index Systems

T o provide a more thorough understanding of contaminants and conditio n s affecting small systems, and

to provide additional data quality assurance for the UCMR data analysis, EP A has selected 30 small

PWSs as “Index Systems” from the 800 systems that conduct Assessment Monitoring. Index Systems will conduct Assessment Monitoring every year during the 5-year UCMR cycle, and are required to

provide EP

A with additional environm ental and system operation information. T o minimize the

additional burden on these systems, EP A will provide for field technicians to assist with sample

collection, and will pay for the cost of shipping and testing UCMR samples. In some cases, States

may collect the samples for the small systems, rather than the EP A-specified contractor

. Owners/operators of Index Systems are required to assist EP A in identifying appropriate sampling

locations and provide information on wells and intakes in use at the time of sampling, well casing and screen depth (if known) for those wells, and the pumping rates of each well or intake at the time of

sampling. EP

A will collect detailed observations of system operation that may affect contaminant

occurrence, such as nature of the source water (type of aquifer or surface water body), number of wells, well depth, configuration of source water intake, treatment, entry points, and how sources are

used (seasonally

, blended, etc.), as well as other environmental factors. At the time of sampling, EP A

, or its contractors, will also gather additional system information to characterize the environmentalUCMR Reference Guide October 2001

17 setting affecting the system including precipitation, land and water resource use, and environmental factors (such as soil type and geology). This information will assist EP A in more fully evaluating

small system operations, and in developing or modifying future regulations for small systems.

2.4 State and T ribal Participation

T o minimize the burden of monitoring and data collection efforts on States, T ribes, and T

erritories,

EP A will directly implement the UCMR. However , EP A has encouraged States to become involved

in the UCMR program through P As with E P

A. The P

As facilitate State participation in the

development and implementation of State Monitoring Pl ans (SMPs). The States, through the

provisions of the SMPs, reviewed and modified the list of systems required to sample, and in some

cases, sampling locations. See Section 7 for a more complete description of State participation and

Section 8 for T

ribal participation. Some States decided not to participate in P A s, in which case EP

A

establ ished the State Monitoring Plan (SMP) by review of State inventory or direct contact with

systems.UCMR Reference Guide October 2001

18UCMR Reference Guide October 2001

19 

## 3. Contaminants to be Monitored

3.1 Assessment Monitoring

There are 12 unregulated chemical contaminants on the UCMR (1999) List 1. Analytical methods are

currently available for all of these contaminants and most of these methods are approved for compliance monitoring (exceptions include EP A Methods 314.0 and 515.4). The List 1 contaminants

and their common environmental sources are listed in T able 1. Assessment Monitoring is discussed

in greater detail throughout this document as it relates to monitoring requirements, and PWS, State, and

EP A responsibility

.

3.2 Screening Surveys

There are 15 unregulated chemical contaminants on the UCMR (1999) List 2, and one microbiological

contaminant (

Aer omonas ). The List 2 contaminants are shown in T a ble 2. EP

A is conducting the

Screening Surveys to analyze for contaminants where the use of newly developed, non-routine analytic al methods are required. The Screening Surveys will help EP A to identify whether a

contaminant of concern is occurring in drinking water and to estimate the range of concentrations of

that occurrence. The Screening Surveys are also intended to allow EP A to screen contaminants to see

if they occur at high enough frequencies or at concentrations that justify inclusion in future unregulated

contaminant Assessment Monitoring, or at sufficiently low frequencies that they do not require further monitoring.

Analytical methods for RDX and alachlor ESA are currently being refined by EP A. Monitoring for

these contaminants is not scheduled for the Screening Surveys. EP A may conduct a third Screening

Survey for these contaminants in the 2001 - 2005 round of UCMR monitoring if analytical methods can be developed and validated for use. For more information on this rule, please refer to the List 2

Rule (66 FR 2273).

Note that low level nitrobenzene was added to UCMR (1999) List 2. EP A requires monitoring for

nitrobenzene in Assessment Monitoring between 2001 and 2003, using the methods approved in 64

FR 50556. The approved analytical methods for Assessment Monitoring can accurately measure

levels of nitrobenzene at concentrations above 10 μg/L; however , recent health effects information

indicates that nitrobenzene may be a h ealth concern at lower concentrations. Methods reliably

detecting nitrobenzene at concentrations less than 10 μg/L were not available at the time of publication

of the September 1999 final UCMR (64 FR 50556). Through additional methods research, EP A developed and refined EP A Method 526, which enables EP A to measure several contaminants on

UCMR (1999) List 2, including nitrobenzene, below 10 μg/L. The analytical methods used to detect

nitrobenzene under Assessment Monitoring and the Screening Survey can be used to detect several

other contaminants on Lists 1 and 2. Because of this, analysis of nitrobenzene will not impose

additional costs on systems. Screening Survey monitoring is discussed in greater detail throughout this document as it relates to monitoring requirements, and PWS, State, and EP A responsibility

.UCMR Reference Guide October 2001

20 3.3 Pre-Screen T

esting

There are nine contaminants on the UCMR (1999) List 3, including seven microbiological

contaminants and two radiological contaminants. These contaminants and their common environmental

sources are listed i n T

able 3. EP

A may conduct Pre-Screen T e sting to determine the validity of

analytical methods that might be use d in a broader monitoring effort (i.e., in a future round of

Assessment Monitoring). Pre-Screen T e sting is discussed in greater detail throughout this document

as it relates to monitoring requirements, and PWS, State, and EP A responsibility

.

3.4 W ater Quality Parameters

Both large and small PWSs must analyze water quality parameters (WQPs) when monitoring UCMR

microbiological contaminants. This currently includes the List 2 Screening Survey contaminant

Aer omon as . In the future, this is also likely to include many of the List 3 Pre-Screen T e sting

contaminants. WQPs must be monitored for each sampling event at each sampling point, using the

method(s) indicated in T

able 5.

T able 5. W

ater Quality Parameters to be Monitored with UCMR Microbiological

Contaminants

Parameter Contaminant

T ype Methodology

EP A

Method Standard

Methods 1 Other

pH Microbiological 150.1 2

150.2 2 4500-H + B ASTM D1293-84 3

ASTM D1293-95 3

T urbidity Microbiological 180.1 4,5 2130 B 4 GLI Method 2 4,6

T emperature Microbiological 2550

Free

Disinfectant

Residual Microbiological 4500-Cl D

4500-Cl F

4500-Cl G

4500-Cl H

4500-ClO

2 D

4500-ClO

2 E

4500-O

3 B ASTM D 1253-86 3

T otal

Disinfectant

Residual Microbiological 4500-Cl D

4500-Cl E 4

4500-Cl F

4500-Cl G 4

4500-Cl I ASTM D 1253-86 3

The analytical procedures shall be conducted in accordance with the documents listed in these footnotes. Copies of the documents may be obtained from the sources listed in these footnotes. Information regarding obtaining these

documents can be obtained from the Safe Drinking W ater Hotline at 800-426-4791. Documents may be inspected at

EP A’s Drinking W

ater Docket, 401 M Street, SW

., W ashington, DC 20460 (T

elephone: 202-260-3027); or at the

Office of Federal Register , 800 North Capitol Street, NW ., Suite 700, W

ashington, DC.

1 The 18 t h and 19 th Ed

itions of S tandard Methods for the Examination of W ater and W

astewater

, 1992 and 1995.

Methods 2130 B; 2550; 4500-Cl D, E, F

, G, H, I; 4500- ClO

2 D, E; 4500-H + B; and 4500-O

3 B in the 20 th edition

Standard Methods for the Examination of W ater and W

astewater , 1998, American Public Health Association, 1015

Fifteenth St. NW

, W ashington D.C., 20005.UCMR Reference Guide October 2001

21 2 Methods 150.1 and 150.2 are available from US EP A

, NERL, 26 W

. Martin Luther King Dr

., Cincinnati, Ohio 45268.

The identical methods are also in “Methods for Chemical Analysis of W ater and W

astes,” EP A-600/4-79-020, March

1983, available from the National T echnical Information Service (NTIS), U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Rd., Springfield, V

irginia 22161, PB84-128677. (Note: NTIS toll-free number is 800-553-6847.)

3 A nnual Book of ASTM Standards

, Editions 1994, 1996, 1998 and 1999, V olum e s 1 1.01, American Society for

T esting and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, W est Conshohocken, P

A 19428. V

ersion D1293-84 is located in the

Annual Book of ASTM Standards , 1994, V olumes 1 1.01. V

ersion D1293-95 is located in the Annual Book of ASTM

Standards , 1996, 1998 and 1999, V olumes 1 1.01.

4 “T echnical Notes on Drinking W ater ,” EP A-600/R-94-173, October 1994, A vailable at NTIS, PB95-104766.

5 “Methods for the Determination of Inorganic Substances in Environmental Samples,” EP A-600/R-93-100, August

1993. A vailable at NTIS, PB94-12181 1

6 GLI Method 2, “T

u rbidity ,” November 2, 1992, Great Lakes Instruments Inc., 8855 No rth 55 t h St., Milwaukee,

W isconsin 53223.UCMR Reference Guide October 2001

22UCMR Reference Guide October 2001

23 

## 4. Sample Collection and Analysis for UCMR (1999) Contaminants

4.1 Large Public W

ater Systems

Large PWSs are responsible for collecting all UCMR samples in accordance with the timing and

frequency requirements presented in Section 5. Large systems must follow the sampling quality

control procedures required under §141.40(a)(1)(ii) and (iv) and described in the UCMR (1999) List

1 and List 2 Chemical Analytical Methods QC Manual (EP A 815-R-01-028). Once samples are collected, large PWSs are responsible for sending the samples to an EP A-approved laboratory for

analysis (§141.40(a)(4)(ii), (5)(ii)(G), and (7)(i)). Laboratory certification requirements are

discussed in 40 CFR §141.28, as well as the QC Manual . Systems that have laboratories approved

to per form UCMR analysis on-site may analyze their own Assessment Monitoring and Screening

Survey samples, but the laborato ries must follow the required methods and quality control requirements outlined in the QC Manual (§141.40(a)(4)(ii), (5)(ii), and (7)(ii)). If samples are sent

out to a laboratory

, it is the responsibility of the owner/operator to use laboratories that are certified

under §141.28, and approved to conduct UCMR analyses, and that these laboratories conform to the methods and quality control requirements approved in the UCMR. Note that for perchlorate and

Aer omonas there are special Performance Evaluation program requirements.

4.2 Small Public W

ater Systems

Small P WSs are responsible for collecting all UCMR samples in accordance with the timing and

frequency requireme nts in Section 5. However , some States will collect samples for the small systems. Those sampling for small systems must follow the sampling quality control procedures as

directed in the in structions included in sample collection kits (§141.40(a)(4)(iii), (5)(iii), and

(7)(iii)). Once the samples are collected, small PWSs are responsible for sending the samples to the

EP A-specified laboratory for analysis (§141.40(a)(4)(iii), (5)(iii)(H), and (7)(ii)).UCMR Reference Guide October 2001

24UCMR Reference Guide October 2001

25 

## 5. General Monitoring Requirements

5.1 Monitoring Frequency and Sampling Location

For chemical contaminants, systems will sample from all EPTDS or other sampling points specified

by the State that represent all principal sources of water used over the monitoring period. Note that

systems may sample raw water sources for UCMR (1999) List 1 contaminants, if this is the

compliance monitoring point required by the State. If a UCMR contaminant is detected, the system

must also then initiate monitoring at the EPTDSs for those contaminants detected. Once systems begin

monitoring at EPTDSs, they must continue to monitor at these entry points for the next 12-month

period, even if the monitoring extends beyond t he end of 2003. This flexibility in the sampling

location should enable systems and States to coordinate compliance and unreg ulated contaminant

monitoring more exte nsively . However , all UCMR (1999) List 2 chemical contaminants must be

collected at entry points to the distribution system to ensure consistent sampling results nationwide

(§141.40(a)(7)).

For UCMR chemical monitoring, surface water-supplied systems will monitor at each of these points

every three months for a 12-month period and ground water-supplied systems will monitor at each of

these point s two times, five to seven months apart, within a 12-month period. T a ble 6 lists the

monitoring frequencies based on contaminant type and source of water

.

One of the monitoring events for both surface water and ground water systems must occur at the most vulnerable time of year for the PWS. The default vulnerable time is defined as May 1 through July 31, unless otherwise specified by EP A or the State. Sampling during the most vulnerable time will

provide data representing potential variation in contaminant concentration over the course of a year

. It is essential that such var iations are captured during data collection to evaluate human exposure related to contaminant occurrence. Some systems perform their regulated chemical monitoring on a

quarterly basis and can collect UCMR samples coincident with their compliance samples to minimize

the labor burden associated with UCMR monitoring. Other systems may only conduct compliance

monitoring once every third year an d will therefore have to collect additional samples under the

UCMR. These systems can collect one UCMR sample coincident with this compliance sample.

However

, EP

A requires that ground water systems take a second sample five to seven months earlier

or later to provide data on seasonal variation.

Systems selected to monitor for Aer omonas as part of List

2 (Screening Survey) monitoring will

collect samples once each quarter

, with additional samples taken each month d uring the warmest

quarter of the year

, July through September (i.e., six times during the year). This means that sampling

must take place in each of the six (6) months of either: January

, April, July

, August, September

, October; or February

, May

, July

, August, September

, November; or March, Ju ne, July , August,

September

, December; unless the State or EP A informs the system otherwise. Collecting these six

samples will increase the likelihood of detecting sporadic microbial occurrence. Three samples will

be collected from each system for each sampling event. Sampling locations must include one midpoint

in the distribution system where the disinfectant residual will be expected to be typical for the system (midpoint, or MD, as defined in the Rule), and two other points: one of maximum retention time (point

of maximum residence, or MR, as defined in the Rule), and one where the disinfectant residual will

have typically declined (location of lowest disinfectant residual or LD, as defined in the Rule).UCMR Reference Guide October 2001

26 T able 6. Monitoring Frequency by Contaminant and W ater Source T

ypes

Contaminant T

ype W

ater Source T

ype Timeframe Frequency

Chemical Surface water T welve (12) months Four (4) quarterly samples taken as

follows: Select either the first, second, or third month of a quarter and

sample in that same month of each of

four (4) consecutive quarters a to ensure that one of those sampling

events occurs during the vulnerable

time b

Ground water T welve (12) months T

wo (2) times in a year taken as

follows: Sample during one (1) month

of the vulnerable time b and during one

(1) month five (5) to seven (7) months

earlier or later c

Microbiological Surface and ground

water T welve (12) months Six (6) times in a year taken as

follows: Select either the first,

second, or third month of a quarter and sample in that same month of each of

four (4) quarters, and sample an additional two (2) months during the

warmest (vulnerable) quarter of the

year

. d

a “Select either the first, second, or third month of a quarter and sample in that same month of each of four consecutive

quarters” means that the system must monitor during each of the four months of either: January , April, July

, October;

or February

, May , August, November; or March, June, September , December

.

b “V ulnerable time” means May 1 through July 31, unless the State or EP A informs the system that it has selected a

different time period for sampling as its vulnerable time.

c “Sample during one month of the vulnerable time and during one month five to seven months earlier or later” means, for example, that if the system selects May as its “vulnerable time” month to sample, then one month five to seven

months earlier would be either October

, November

, or December of the preceding year , and one month five to seven

months later would be either , October , November

, or December of the same year

.

d This means that the system must monitor during each of the si x months of either: January , April, July

, August,

September

, October

, or February

, May

, July

, August, September

, November

, or March, June, July

, August, September

, December; unless the State or EP A informs the system that a different vulnerable quarter has been selected for it.

Sites selected for Aer

omonas samples may be, and should be, where possible, the same locations

identified for other drinking water contaminants which may occur under similar conditions. For

example, samples for coliform indicator bacteria, as described in 40 CFR §141.21, are taken from a variety of locations through the distribution system. More specifically

, some of these samples are

from locations where the disinfectant residual is representative of the distribution system and has not significantly declined. Locations specified in the sample plan for coliform bacteria that meet this

description could be used for the Aer omonas midpoint sample. Additionally

, Aer omonas samples

must be taken from two locations in the distribution system where the disinfectant residual is expected

to be low . This is similar to total trihalomethane (TTHM) sampling points, as described in 63 FR

69468, the Disinfectants and Disinfe ction Byproducts Rule, and 40 CFR §141.30. These sample

locations are at distal parts of the distribution system (takin g care to avoid disinfectant boosterUCMR Reference Guide October 2001

27 stations) or dead ends, or locations previously determined to have the lowest disinfectant residual for systems which disinfect.

5.2 General Quality Control Requirements

Sampling and laboratory quality control requirements promote proper sample collection and analyses

to ensure that the EP

A obtains the most reliable monito ring data possible. This is particularly

important since UCMR data will only be collected from approximately 3,600 systems (about 2,800 large systems and 800 small systems). T o ensure reliable data, EP

A is specifying the use of specific

analytical methods that are currently available for monitoring (§141.40(a)(3), T able 1). While many

of these methods are routinely used by commercial and PWS laboratories (including some that are currently used for compliance monitoring), they have not necessarily been used routinely for the

contaminants on the UCMR (1999) List. As shown in T a ble 7, methods other than those that EP A has developed may be approved for use, but quality control procedures must also be followed as specified

in §141.40(a)(3),(4) and (5), and §141.40 Appendix A (64 FR 50556).

T able 7 lists the approved analytical methods for UCMR (1999) List 1 contaminants, and T able 8 lists

analytical methods for List 2 contaminants. More detailed information on these analytical methods

can be found in the UCMR (1999) List 1 and List 2 Chemical Analytical Methods QC Manual (EP A

815-R-01-028). Once List 3 methods are fully developed, reviewed, and refined, EP A will provide

further guidance for the List 3 contaminants.

T able 7. Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List 1

1-Contaminant 2-CAS

registry

number 3-Analytical

methods 4-

Minimum

reporting

level 5-Sampling

location 6-Period during

which monitoring

to be completed

List 1 - Assessment Monitoring Chemical Contaminants

2,4-dinitrotoluene 121-14-2 EP A Method 525.2 a 2 μg/L e EPTDS f 2001-2003

2,6-dinitrotoluene 606-20-2 EP A Method 525.2 a 2 μg/L e EPTDS f 2001-2003

Acetochlor 34256-82-

1 EP

A Method 525.2 a 2 μg/L o EPTDS f 2001-2003

DCP A mono-acid

degradate h 887-54-7 EP A Method 515.1 a

EP A Method 515.2 a

EP A Method 515.3 i,j

EP A Method 515.4 k

D5317-93 b

AOAC 992.32 c 1 μg/L e EPTDS f 2001-2003

DCP A di-acid

degradate h 2136-79-0 EP A Method 515.1 a

EP A Method 515.2 a

EP A Method 515.3 i,j

EP A Method 515.4 k

D5317-93 b

AOAC 992.32 c 1 μg/L e EPTDS f 2001-2003UCMR Reference Guide October 2001

T able 7. Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List 1

1-Contaminant 2-CAS

registry

number 3-Analytical

methods 4-

Minimum

reporting

level 5-Sampling

location 6-Period during

which monitoring

to be completed

List 1 - Assessment Monitoring Chemical Contaminants

28 4,4'-DDE 72-55-9 EP A Method 508 a

EP A Method 508.1 a

EP A Method 525.2 a

D5812-96 b

AOAC 990.06 c 0.8 μg/L e EPTDS f 2001-2003

EPTC 759-94-4 EP A Method 507 a

EP A Method 525.2 a

D5475-93 b

AOAC 991.07 c 1 μg/L e EPTDS f 2001-2003

Molinate 2212-67-1 EP A Method 507 a

EP A Method 525.2 a

D5475-93 b

AOAC 991.07 c 0.9 μg/L e EPTDS f 2001-2003

MTBE 1634-04-4 EP A Method 502.2 a,n

SM 6200C d,n

EP A Method 524.2 a

D5790-95 b

SM 6210D d

SM 6200B d 5 μg/L g EPTDS f 2001-2003

Nitrobenzene 98-95-3 EP A Method 524.2 a

D5790-95 b

SM6210D d

SM6200B d 10 μg/L g EPTDS f 2001-2003

Perchlorate 14797-73-

0 EP

A Method 314.0 l 4 μg/L m EPTDS f 2001-2003

T erbacil 5902-51-2 EP A Method 507 a

EP A Method 525.2 a

D5475-93 b

AOAC 991.07 c 2 μg/L e EPTDS f 2001-2003

Column headings are: 1-Chemical or microbiological contaminant: the name of the contaminants to be analyzed.

2-CAS (Chemical Abstract Service Number) Registry Number or Identification Number: a unique number identifying

the chemical contaminants.

3-Analytical Methods: method numbers identifying the methods that must be used to test the contaminants.

4-Minimum Reporting Level: the value and unit of measure at or above which the concentration or density of the contaminant must be measured using the Approved Analytical Methods.

5-Sampling Location: the locations within a PWS at which samples must be collected.

6-Y ears During Which Monitoring to Be Completed: The years during which the sampling and testing are to occur for

the indicated contaminant.UCMR Reference Guide October 2001

29 The procedures shall be done in accordance with the documents listed next in these footnotes. The incorporation by

re ference of the following documents listed in footnotes b-d and l was approved by the Director of the Federal

Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of the documents may be obtained from the following sources. Information regarding obtaining these documents can be obtained from the Safe Drinking W ater

Hotline at 800-426-4791. Documents may be inspected at EP A’s Drinking W

ater Doc ket, 401 M Street, SW

. , W ashington, DC 20460 (T

elephone: 202-260-3027); or at the Office of Federal Register , 800 North Capitol Street,

NW ., Suite 700, W

ashington, DC.

a The version of the EP

A methods which you must follow for this Rule are listed at §141.24(e).

b A nnual Book of ASTM Standards , 1996, 1998 and 1999 V ol. 1 1.02, American Society for T esting and Materials.

Method D5812-96, “Standard T est Method for Determination of Organochlorine Pesticides in W ater by Capillary

Column Gas Chromatography”, is located in the Annual Book of ASTM Standards

, 1998 and 199 9, V o l. 1 1.02.

Methods D5790-95, “Standard T est Method for Measurement of Purgeable Organic Compounds in W ater by Capillary Column Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry”; D5475-93, “Standard T e st Method for Nitrogen- and Phosph orousContaining Pesticides in W ater by Gas Chromatography with a Nitrogen-Phosphorous Detector”; and D5317-93,

“Standard T

est Method for Determination of Chlorinated Organic Acid Compounds in W ater by Gas Chromatography with an Electron Capture Detector” are located in the Annual Book of ASTM Standards , 1996 and 1998, V ol 1 1.02.

Copies may be obtained from the American Society for T esting and Materials, 100 Barr H a rbor Drive, W est Conshohocken, P

A 19428.

c Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC (Association of Official Analytical Chemist) International, Sixteenth

Edition, 4 th Revision, 1998, V o lume I, AOAC International, First Union National Bank Lockbox, PO Box 75198,

Baltimore, MD 21275-5198. 800-379-2622.

d SM 6210 D is only found in the 18 t h and 19 t h editions of Standard Methods for the Examination of W ater and

W astewater

, 1992 and 1995, American Public Health Association; either edition may be used. SM 6200 B and 6200

C are only found in the 20 th edition of S tandard Methods for the Examination of W ater and W

astewater

, 1998. Copies

may be obtained from the American Public Health Association, 1015 Fifteenth Street NW , W ashington, DC 20005.

e Minimum Reporting Level determined by multiplying by 10 the least sensitive method’s detection limit (detection

limit=standard deviation times the Student’s t value for 99% confidence level with n-1 degrees of freedom), or when

available, multiplying by 5 the least sensitive method’s estimated detection limit (where the estimated detection limit

equals the concentration of compound yielding approximately a 5 to 1 signal to noise ratio or the calculated detection

limit, whichever is greater).

f Entry Points to the Distribution System (EPTDS), after treatment, representing each non-emergency water source

in use over the 12-month period of monitoring: this only includes entry points for sources in operation during the months in which sampling is to occur . Sampling must occur at the EPTDS, unless the State has specified other

sampling points that are used for compliance monito ring 40 CFR 141.24 (f)(1), (2), and (3). See 40 CFR

141.40(a)(5)(ii)(C) for a complete explanation of requirements, including the use of source (raw) water sampling points.

g Minimum Reporting Levels (MRL) for V olatile Organic Compounds (VOC) determined by multiplying either the

published detection limit or 0.5 μ g/L times 10, whichever is greater . The detection limit of 0.5 μ g/L (0.0005 mg/L)

was selected to conform to VOC detection limit requirements of 40 CFR 141.24(f)(17)(E).

h The approved methods do not allow for the identification and quantitation of the individual acids. The single analytical result obtained should be reported as total DCP A mono- and di-acid degradates.

i Method 515.3, “Determination of Chlorinated Acids in Drinking W a ter by Liquid-Liquid Extraction, Derivatization

and Gas Chromatography with Electron Capture Detection,” Revision 1.0 July 1996. EP A 815-R-00-014, “Methods

for the Determination of Organic and Inorganic Compounds in Drinking W ater , V olume 1,” August 2000. A vailable

from the National T

echnical Information Service, NTIS PB2000-106981, U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, V irginia 22161. The toll free number is 800-553-6847. Alternatively

, the method can be

assessed and downloaded directly on-line at www .epa.gov/safewater/methods/sourcalt.html.

j Since EP

A Method 515.3 does not include a solvent wash step following hydrolysis, the parent DCP A is not removed

prior to analysis, therefore, only non-detect data may be reported using Method 515.3. All samples with results above

the MRL must be analyzed by one of the other approved methods.

k EP A Method 515.4, “Determination of Chlorinated Acids in Drinking W a ter by Liquid-Liquid Microextraction,

Derivatization and Fast Gas Chromatography with Electron Capture Detection,” Revision 1.0, April 2000, EP A 815/B00/001. A

vailable by requesting a copy from the EP A Safe Drinking W

ater Hotline within the United States at 800-

426-4791 (Hours are Monday through Friday

, excluding federal holidays, from 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Eastern T ime).

Alternatively , the method can be assessed and downloaded directly on-line at

www .epa.gov/safewater/methods/sourcalt.html.UCMR Reference Guide October 2001

30 l Method 314.0, “Determination of Perchlorate in Drinking W ater Using Ion Chromatography ,” Revision 1.0, EP A

815-B-99-003, November 199 9. EP A 815-R-00-014, “Methods for the Determination of Organic and Inorganic

Compounds in Drinking W ater

, V olume 1,” August 2000. A v ailable from the National T echnical Information Service,

NTIS PB2000-106981, U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, V irginia 22161. The toll

free number is 800-553-6847. Alternatively , the method can be assessed and downloaded directly on-line at

www .epa.gov/safewater/methods/sourcalt.html.

m MRL was established at a concentration, which is at least 1/4th the lowest known adverse health concentration, at

which acceptable precision and accuracy has been demonstrated in spiked matrix samples.

n Sample preservation techniques and holding times specified in EP A Method 524.2 must be used by laboratories using

either EP A Method 502.2 or Standard Methods 6200C.

T able 8. Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List 2

1-Contaminant 2-CAS

Registry

Number 3-Analytical

Methods 4-

Minimum

Reporting

Level 5-Sampling

Location 6-Period During

Which Monitoring

to Be Completed

List 2 - Screening Survey – Chemical Contaminants

T o Be Sampled After Notice of Analytical Methods A vailability

1,2-

diphenylhydrazine 122-66-7 EP A Method

526 a 0.5 μg/L EPTDS e 2001 - Selected

Systems serving

< 10,000 persons;

2002 - Selected

systems serving > 10,000 persons.

2-methyl-phenol 95-48-7 EP A Method

528 b 1 μg/L f EPTDS e same as above.

2,4-dichlorophenol 120-83-2 EP A Method

528 b 1 μg/L f EPTDS e same as above.

2,4-dinitrophenol 51-28-5 EP A Method

528 b 5 μg/L f EPTDS e same as above.

2,4,6- trichlorophenol 88-06-2 EP A Method

528 b 1 μg/L f EPTDS e same as above.

Alachlor ESA Reserved e Reserved d Reserved d Reserved d Reserved d

Diazinon 333-41-5 EP A Method

526 a 0.5 μg/L f EPTDS e 2001 - Selected

Systems serving

< 10,000 persons;

2002 - Selected

systems serving > 10,000 persons.

Disulfoton 298-04-4 EP A Method

526 a 0.5 μg/L f EPTDS e same as above.

Diuron 330-54-1 EP A Method

532 c 1 μg/L f EPTDS e same as above.

Fonofos 944-22-9 EP A Method

526 a 0.5 μg/L f EPTDS e same as above.

Linuron 330-55-2 EP A Method

532 c 1 μg/L f EPTDS e same as above.UCMR Reference Guide October 2001

T able 8. Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List 2

1-Contaminant 2-CAS

Registry

Number 3-Analytical

Methods 4-

Minimum Reporting

Level 5-Sampling

Location 6-Period During

Which Monitoring

to Be Completed

List 2 - Screening Survey – Chemical Contaminants

T o Be Sampled After Notice of Analytical Methods A vailability

31 Nitrobenzene 98-95-3 EP A Method

526 a 0.5 μg/L g EPTDS e same as above.

Prometon 1610-18-0 EP A Method

526 a 0.5 μg/L f EPTDS e same as above.

RDX 121-82-4 Reserved d Reserved d Reserved d Reserved d

T erbufos 13071-79-9 EP A Method

526 a 0.5 μg/L f k EPTDS e 2001 - Selected

Systems serving

< 10,000 persons;

2002 - Selected

systems serving > 10,000 persons.

List 2 - Screening Survey – Microbiological Contaminants

T o Be Sampled After Notice of Analytical Methods A vailability

Aer omonas NA Reserved d Reserved d Distribution System g 2003 h

Column headings are:

1 - Chemical or microbiological contaminant: the name of the contaminants to be analyzed.

2

- CAS (Chemical Abstract Service Number) Registry Number or Identification Number: a unique number identifying

the chemical contaminants. 3 - Analytical Methods: method numbers identifying the methods that must be used to test the contaminants.

4

- Minimum Reporting Level: the value and unit of measure at or above which the concentration or density of the

contaminant must be measured using the Approved Analytical Methods. 5 - Sampling Location: the locations within a PWS at which samples must be collected.

6 - Y ears During Which Monitoring to be Completed: the years during which the sampling and testing are to occur for

the indicated contaminant.

The procedures shall be done in accordance with the documents listed next in these footnotes. The incorporation by

reference of the following documents listed in footnotes a-c, was approved by the Director of the Federal Register

in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of the documents may be obtained from the following

sources. Information regarding obtaining these documents can be obtained from the Safe Drinking W ater Hotline at 800-426-4791. Copies of the documents may be obtained from the sources listed in these footnotes. Information

regarding obtaining these documents can be obtain ed from the Safe Drinking W a ter Hotline at 800-426-4791.

Documents may be inspected at EP A’s Dr inking W

ater Docket, 401 M Street, SW

. , W ashington, DC 20460

(T elephone: 202-260-3027); or at the Office of Federal Register

, 800 North Capitol Street, NW

., Suite 700,

W ashington, DC.

a EP A Method 526, “Determination of Selected Semivolatile Organic Compounds in Drinking W ater by Solid Phase

Extraction and Capillary Column Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS),” Revision 1.0, June 2000. EP A

815-R-00-014, “Methods for the Determination of Organic and Inorganic Compounds in Drinking W ater

, V olume 1,”

August 2000. A

vailable from the National T echnical Information Service, NTIS PB2000-106981, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 5285 Port Roya l Road, Springfield, V i rginia 22161. The toll free number is 800-553-6847.UCMR Reference Guide October 2001

32 Alternatively , the method can be assessed and downloaded directly on-line at

www .epa.gov/safewater/methods/sourcalt.html.

b EP A Method 528, “Determination of Phenols in Drinking W ater by Solid Phase Extraction and Capillary Column Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS),” Revision 1.0, April 2000. EP A 815-R-00-014, “Methods for

the Determination of Organic and Inorganic Compounds in Drinking W ater

, V olume 1,” August 2000. A vailable from

the National T

echnical Information Service, NTIS PB2000-106981, U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal

Road, Springfield, V

irginia 22161. The toll free number is 800-553-6847. Alternatively , the method can be assessed

and downloaded directly on-line at www .epa.gov/nerlcwww/ordmeth.htm.

c EP A Method 532, “Determination of Phenylurea Compounds in Drinking W a ter by Solid Phase Extraction and High

Performance Liquid Chromatography with UV Detection,” Revision 1.0, June 2000. EP A 815-R-00-014, “Methods

for the determination of Organic and Inorganic Compounds in Drinking W ater , V olume 1,” August 2000. A vailable

from the National T

echnical Information Service, NTIS PB2000-106981, U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port
Royal Road, Springfield, V irginia 22161. The toll free number is 800-553-6847. Alternatively , the method can be assessed and downloaded directly on-line at www .epa.gov/safewater/methods/sourcalt.html.

d T o be specified at a later time.

e E ntry Points to the Distribution System (EPTDS), after treatment, representing each non-emergency water source

in use over the 12-month period of monitoring: this only includes entry points for sources in operation during the

months in which sampling is to occur

. Sampling must occur at the EPTDS, source water sampling points are not permitted for List 2 contaminant monitoring.

f Minimum Reporting Level represents the value of the lowest concentration precision and accuracy determination

made during methods development and documented in the method. If method options are permitted, the concentration used was for the least sensitive option.

g Three samples must be taken from the distribution system, which is owned or controlled by the selected PWS. The sample locations must include one sample from a point (MD from §141.35 (d)(3), T able 1) where the disinfectant

residual is representative of the distribution system. This sample location may be selected from sample locations

which have been previously identified for samples to be analyzed for coliform indicator bacteria. Coliform sample locations encompass a variety of sites including midpoint samples which may contain a disinfectant residual that is

typical of the system. Coliform sample locations are described in 40 CFR 141.21. This same approach must be used

for the Aer

omonas midpoint sample where the disinfectant residual would not have declined and would be typical for

the distribution system. Additionally

, two samples must be taken from two different locations: the distal or dead-end

location in the distribution system (MR from §141.35 (d)(3), T able 1), avoiding disinfectant booster stations, and from

a location where previous determinations have indicated the lowest disinfectant residual in the distribution system (LD

from §141.35(d)(3), T

able 1). If these two locations of distal and low disinfectant residual sites coincide, then the second sample must be taken at location between the MD and MR sites. Locations in the distribution system where

the disinfectant residual is expected to be low are similar to TTHM sampling points. Sampling locations for TTHMs

are described in 63 FR 69468.

h This monitoring period is contingent upon promulgation of the analytical method and minimum reporting level.

5.3 Quality Control Requirements for Sample Collection

Procedures for sample collection under the UCMR are contaminant- and method-specific. Detailed

sample collection instructions for Assessment Monitoring contaminants can be found in t he Small
Systems Guidance

– Unr

egulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation Guidance for Operators of

Public W ater Systems Serving 10,000 or Fewer People (EP A 815-R-01-002)

– for small PWSs, and

in the UCMR (1999) List 1 and List 2 Chemical Analytical Methods QC Manual (EP A 815-R-01- 028), for large systems and laboratories.

Both large and small PWSs must ensure that samples are collected early enough in the day to allow

time for overnight delivery to the laboratories, since some samples must be processed within 30 hours

of collection (§141.40(a)(5)(i)(a)). Samples may not be composited (i.e., combined, mixed, or

blended). Each sample must be collected, preserved (if applicable), and tested separately

(§141.40(a)(5)(i)(b)).UCMR Reference Guide October 2001

33 5.3.1 Quality Control Requirements for Sample Collection: Additional Requirements Specific

to Large Systems

If sample collection at large systems is not performed according to the required instructions and

procedures for each contaminant and analytical method, the system owner/operator will be required

to resample following the required method instructions and procedures (§141.40(a)(5)(ii)(F) and

(iii)(C)). If laboratory or shipping problems cause the loss of a sample, then all efforts should be

made to replace that sample at the earliest possible time (preferably in the same month that the original sample was collected). If resampling in the same month is not possible, then systems should collect

the samples in the same quarter , so that monitoring schedules do not need to change. The only case

where monitoring schedules may change is if all the samples for the first sampling period are lost or damaged. In this case, the system may monitor in another month, and reschedule sampling based on

that starting month.

Large system owners/operators are responsible for arranging contaminant analysis for Assessment

Monitoring and Screening Surveys at an approved laboratory

. For the Pre-Screen T

e sting analyses,

the EP A will provide a list of laboratories that may be used when pre-screen testing is required.

The large system owner/operator should consult with the laboratory conducting the analytical work

regarding the sampling protocol (§141.40(a)(5)(iii)(F)). Laboratories may require collection and

submission of some duplicate samples as part of their internal quality control program, or for other practical considerations in the event that sample containers are lost, broken, or not properly sealed

or cooled.

5.3.2 Quality Control Requirements for Sample Collection: Additional Requirements Specific

to Small Systems

The State or EP

A may notify small systems of their sampling requirements and schedule. If sampling

is not performed according to the instructions or procedures for each contaminant and its method, then

the owner/operator must notify the State or EP A of the sampling deviations. The sampling deviations

should be included in the sample reporting forms that are sent back to the laboratory with the samples.

The PWS must resample as soon as instructi ons are received from the laboratory or the EP A

contractor (§141.40(a)(5)(iii)(C)).

The EP A contractor will send a sample collection kit to all small systems, which will include: an

insulated sample shipping container or containers; all required sampling bottles; freeze packs to keep samples cool in transit back to the laboratory; any chemicals needed to dechlorinate and/or preserve samples; a pre-paid return shipping do cket; sample collection data forms; and any additional

instructions or materials needed for sample collection, dechlorination, and preservation. If any of the

materials listed in the kit instructions are not included or arrive damaged, the system must notify the

contractor prior to use of the sample collection kit (§141.40(a)(5)(iii)(D)). Each kit must be stored

and maintained in a secure place until used for sampling (§141.40(a)(5)(iii)(D)). Note that cold packs

must be frozen prior to sample collection so that the collected samples can be kept cool when shipped to the laboratory (§141.40(a)(5)(iii)(E)).

Instructions provided with the kit will describe the proper procedures for use of containers, sample

collection, dechlorination and/or preservation of the samples, and sealing and preparing the samples

and containers for shipment. EP A will use a random process to select some systems in State Monitoring Plans (SMPs) that will be requested to collect duplicate samples for quality control.UCMR Reference Guide October 2001

34 Approximately 10% of samples collected for small systems will be collected in duplicate. Systems

selected for this quality control sampling will receive two sample collection kits. The same required

sampling procedures must be used for both the original and the duplicate sample kits

(§141.40(a)(5)(iii) (D) and (F)). These systems will not incur additional costs since EP A is paying

for small system testing.

5.3.3 Quality Control Requirements for Laboratories

Systems must ensure that laboratories providing services in support of their monitoring are currently

certified to perform co mpliance monitoring, as applicable to those analytical methods which are

approved for UCMR

Assessment Monitoring and Screening Surveys (§141.40(a)(5)(ii)(G). They

must also ensure that the laboratory performing perchlorate and Aer omonas analyses has passed the

EP A Performance Evaluation requirements. These methods specify quality control procedures that

must be foll owed to ensure reliable data. Detailed monitoring quality control procedures are

discussed in the UCMR (1999) List 1 and List 2 Chemical Analytical M e thods QC Manual (QC

Manual , EP

A 815-R-01-028).

Quality control procedures and the frequency of quality control testing vary am ong the different analytical methods used for laboratory analysis of the UCMR contaminants. Many methods specified

in the UCMR provide criteria to be used in evaluating and accepting laboratory performance based

on related quality control data. It is imperative that laboratories adhere to the specified quality control requirements. UCMR monitoring data will not be accepted by EP A if the applicable quality control

requirements are not met. If the UCMR quality control requirements are not met, then the system will be out of compliance with respect to the UCMR. The laboratory should ensure that PWSs resample

when quality control requirements are not met. Detailed information on all laboratory quality control

requirements are specified in Appendix A of §141.40 and the QC Manual

.

5.3.4 Additional Quality Controls

Samples for which the methods specify storage at approximately 4°C must arrive at the laboratory

packed in coolers with ice or frozen cold packs. If there is no visible ice or the cold packs are completely thawed, the laboratory should report the conditions to the water system. Samples should

not be analyzed if the shipping temperature was not maintained at 4°C (± 2°). The laboratory must

also invalidate samples that were collected in improper sampling containers (e.g., plastic bottles,

where the method requirements specify glass) or that were improperly filled (e.g., half-filled bottles

for samples that are required to be completely filled with no air or bubbles). New water samples

should be collected to replace these samples. If resampling cannot be performed, then the water

system must indicate in the report to EP A that the samples were invalidated because of a shipment, storage, or sampling problem, etc., and no data should be reported.

In addition, the laboratory must analyze each sample within the required holding time (§141.40 Appendix A (1)). When appropriate, EP A standardized the holding times across analytical methods

for the same analyte group, except for Perchlorate, which has a holding time of approximat ely 40

hours. Please refer to the Q C Manual (EP A 815-R-01-028) for more detailed information on sample

holding times. If a UCMR sample is not extracted or analyzed within the specified holding time, then

the data for the sample should not be reported. The laboratory should indicate to the water system that

the sample was invalidated because of a holding time problem, and the system should collect another

sample. This information would then be reported when the system submits its report for that sampling period.UCMR Reference Guide October 2001

35 

## 6. UCMR Reporting Requirements

6.1 Data Elements

Large systems are required by the UCMR to ensure that the information listed in T able 9 is reported

to the EP

A within 30 days following the month in which laboratory results were received

(§140.35(d)). Laboratories will post UCMR results for their client public water systems by uploading

or entering the data elements using EP A’s electronic reporting system. Analytical results must be approved by PWSs and then released to the EP A as officially reported UCMR data.

Small systems sho uld check that the pre-printed information provided on the sampling forms is correct. This information must be reported so that each sampling point used for UCMR sampling can be

associated with the facility(ies) in use at the time the sampling occurred (§141.40(a)(5)(iii)(E)).

In addition, systems must provide points of contact for: a PWS technical person who is responsible

for the technical aspects of UCMR activities, such as details concerning sampling and reporting; an

official UCMR spokesperson from the PWS; and a laboratory contact person who is able to address questions concerning the analyses performed by the laboratory (§141.40(d)(1)). The laboratory will

post the monitoring data to EP A’s internet-based SDW

ARS/UCMR (Safe Drinking W ater Accession and Review System) reporting system (§141.35(e) and (f)).

T able 9. UCMR Reporting Requirements

Data Element Definition

1. Public W

ater System

Identification Number The code used to identify each PWS. The code begins with the standard two-character postal State abbreviation; the remaining seven

characters are unique to each PWS.

2. Public W

ater System Facility

Identification Number -

Sampling Point Identification

Number and Sampling Point T ype Identification The Sampling point identification number and sampling point type identification must either be static or traceable to previous numbers

and type identifications throughout the period of unregulated

contaminant monitoring. The Sampling point identification number is a three-part alphanumeric designation, made up of:

a. The Public W

ater System Facility Identification Number is an

identification number established by the State, or at the State’s

discretion the PWS, that is unique to the PWS for an intake for each

source of water , a treatment plant, a distribution system, or any other

facility associated with water treatment or delivery and provides for the relationship of facilities to each other to be maintained;

b. The Sampling Point Identification Number is an identification number established by the State, or at the State’s discretion the PWS,

that is unique to each PWS facility that identifies the specific sampling point and allows the relationship of the sampling point to other

facilities to be maintained; and

c. Sampling Point T

ype Identification is one of following:

SR - Untreated water collected at the source of the water system

facility

.UCMR Reference Guide October 2001

T able 9. UCMR Reporting Requirements

Data Element Definition

36 EP - Entry point to the distribution system.

MD - midpoint in the distribution system where the disinfectant

residual would be expected to be typical for the system such as the

location for sampling coliform indicator bacteria as described in 40

CFR 141.21.

MR - point of maximum retention is the point located the furthest

from the entry point to the distribution system which is approved by

the State for trihalomethane (THM) (disinfectant byproducts (DBP)) and/or total coliform sampling.

LD - location in the distribution system where the disinfectant

residual is the lowest which is approved by the State for THM (DBP)

and/or total coliform sampling.

3. Sample Collection Date The date the sample is collected reported as 4-digit year , 2-digit

month, and 2-digit day

.

4. Sample Identification Number An alphanumeric value of up to 15 characters assigned by the

laboratory to uniquely identify containers or groups of containers

containing water samples collected at the same time and sampling point.

5. Contaminant/Parameter The unregulated contaminant or water quality parameter for which the sample is being analyzed.

6. Analytical Results - Sign An alphanumeric value indicating whether the sample analysis result

was:

a. (<) “less than” means the contaminant was not detected or was detected at a level “less than” the minimum reporting level (MRL).

b. (=) “equal to” means the contaminant was detected at a level “equal to” the value reported in “Analytical Result - V alue.”

7. Analytical Result - V alue The actual numeric value of the analysis for chemical and

microbiological results, or the MRL if the analytical result is less than

the contaminant’s MRL

8. Analytical Result - Unit of

Measure The unit of measurement for the analytical results reported. [e.g., micrograms per liter , (μg/L); colony-forming units per 100 milliliter

, (CFU/100 mL), etc.]

9. Analytical Method Number The identification number of the analytical method used.

10. Sample Analysis T

ype The type of sample collected. Permitted values include:

a. RFS - Raw field sample - untreated sample collected and submitted for analysis under this rule.

b. RDS - Raw duplicate field sample - untreated field sample duplicateUCMR Reference Guide October 2001

T able 9. UCMR Reporting Requirements

Data Element Definition

37 collected at the same time and place as the raw field sample and

submitted for analysis under this rule.

c. TFS - T reated field sample - treated sample collected and submitted

for analysis under this rule.

d. TDS - T reated duplicate field sample - treated field sample duplicate collected at the same time and place as the treated field sample and

submitted for analysis under this rule.

1 1. Sample Batch Identification

Number The sample batch identification number consists of three parts:

a. Up to a 10-character laboratory identification code assigned by

EP A;

b. Up to a 15-character code assigned by the laboratory to uniquely identify each extraction or analysis batch.

c. The date that the samples contained in each extraction batch extracted or in an analysis batch were analyzed, reported as an 8-digit

number in the form 4-digit year , 2-digit month, and 2-digit day

.

12. Minimum Reporting Level MRL refers to the lowest concentration of an analyte that may be reported. Unregulated contaminant monitoring MRLs are established

in §141.40 monitoring requirements for unregulated contaminants.

13. Minimum Reporting Level Unit

of Measure The unit of measure to express the concentration, count, or other value of a contaminant level for the Minimum Reporting Level

reported. (e.g., μg/L, colony forming units/100 mL (CFU/100 mL), etc.).

14. Analytical Precision Precision is the degree of agreement between two repeated

measurements and is monitored through the use of duplicate spiked samples. For purposes of the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring

Regulation (UCMR), Analytical Precision is defined as the relative

percent difference (RPD) between spiked matrix duplicates. The RPD for the spiked matrix duplicates analyzed in the same batch of samples

as the analytical result being reported is to be entered in this field. Precision is calculated as the RPD of spiked matrix duplicates from

the mean using:

RPD = absolute value of [(X

1 - X

2 ) /{(X

1 +X

2 )/2}] x 100%

where:

X

1 is the concentration observed in spiked field sample minus the concentration observed in unspiked field sample

X

2 is the concentration observed in duplicate spiked field sample

minus the concentration observed in unspiked field sample

15. Analytical Accuracy Accuracy describes how close a result is to the true value measuredUCMR Reference Guide October 2001

T able 9. UCMR Reporting Requirements

Data Element Definition

38 through the use of spiked field samples. For purposes of unregulated

contaminant monitoring, accuracy is defined as the percent recovery of the contaminant in the spiked matrix sample analyzed in the same

analytical batch as the sample result being reported and calculated

using:

% recovery = [(amt. found in spiked sample - amt. found in sample) / amt. spiked] x 100%

16. Spiking Concentration The concentration of method analytes added to a sample to be analyzed

for calculating analytical precision and accuracy where the value reported use the same unit of measure reported for Analytical Results

17. Presence/Absence Reserved

6.2 Electronic Reporting and Data Review

The UCMR requires that all data be reported electronically to EP A, unless a request is received from

the PWS. Further guidance and tutorials is provided in the U CMR Reporting Guidance (EP A 815-R01-029) and in the forthcoming I mplementation Guide for UCMR

. The UCMR provides for

electronic reporting of UCMR data directly from laboratories on behalf of systems. This is intended

to facilitate “one-entry” of data, reducing reporting e rrors and reducing the time involved in investigating, checking and correcting errors at all levels (laboratory , system, State, and EP

A). The

reporting process will be secure. PWSs and laboratories will have to register as users of EP A ’s

Central Data Exchange (CDX) before gaining access to EP A’s electr onic reporting W e b site. Registration began in March 2001. Systems will have to approve their data before it is available to

EP A.

In general, a PWS can fulfill its responsibilities in one of two ways: (1) it can instruct the laboratory

to post the monitoring results to SDW ARS/UCMR database through the CDX, so the PWS can review the data on line and electronically indicate its approval to make the data available to EP A; or (2) it

can elect to receive a hard copy of the monitoring results for review and then indicate its approval to the laboratory to upload the data to EP A (however , the PWS, or its representative, will still have to

provide electronic approval within SDW ARS/UCMR, to provide EP A access to the data). The PWS

must also submit the results to the State, and is responsible for ensuring compliance with any other State reporting requirements.

EP A is developing several options for the electronic reporting by laboratories, including the

capability to upload data in electronic batches or individually using a W eb interface where data can

be keyed in using “web forms”. Laboratories that have good electronic reporting capabilities and want or need to upload large batches of data have two options:

• Standar

d flat file format

– such as tab or comma delimited files, or

• New XML or extensible mark-up language format

– protocol and format are currently being finalized, and may be available through CDX.UCMR Reference Guide October 2001

39 Large systems are responsible for reviewing analytical results and reporting the results to the EP A

(with a copy to the State) within 30 days following the month in which the results are received from

the laboratory as specified in 40 CFR §141.35. However , for small systems, laboratories will report

all analytical results to EP A, and the EP

A contractor will review all sampling results. For example,

if analytical results for samples that were collected during October were not received back from the

laboratory until November

, the latest allowable reporting date would be December 30. All systems are responsible for ensuring timely reporting within, or shortly following the monitoring period.

EP A has made an exception to the normal reporting schedule for the first rounds of monitoring in 2001

to allow for the readiness of the electronic reporting system. Systems which receive results prior to

January 1, 2002 will be required to report their data by April 30, 2002. EP A will then hold the data for 60 days to allow for quality control review and for review by systems and States. EP A will then

place the data in the National Drinking W ater Contaminant Occurrence Database (NCOD) at the time of the next database update.

For small systems, EP

A will send copies of monitoring results to the systems and the State once EP A

receives and validates the results from the contract laboratories. Small systems are still responsible

for enduring that their State receives a copy of the results. Participating small systems will have 30 days to review and comment on the data. Systems and States will have an additional 60 days to

review the data before results are reported to the NCOD.

Since States will have electronic access to the monitoring results for systems in their State, they may allow systems to forgo the requirement to provide them with a copy of the results. Systems should

check with their St ates for any additional reporting requirements beyond the scope of the UCMR

requirements (i.e., some States may require immediate reporting of monitoring results which may pose

an imminent danger to human health). EPA encouraged States to notify PWSs of additional Statespecific reporting requirements when they notify PWSs of their respons i bilities under the UCMR.

Systems that do not receive direction from their States sh ould report results to their State Agency

concurrent with reporting results to EP A through the electronic reporting system. For small systems

in States that require immediate reporting of contaminants detected, EP A will report results to the

system and the State after EP A receives and validates the results from the laboratory

. However , the system is still responsible for enduring that the State receives a copy of the results. EP A is also not

responsible for identifying all of the States that require immediate reporting of detected contaminants.

6.3 Public Notification

CWSs must report UCMR results through the Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) Rule, published

on August 19, 1998 (63 FR 4451 1), as required by §141.153(d). CWSs must report UCMR results when any of the UCMR contaminants are detected. CCRs must be sent to all billing customers each

year by July 1. A system may briefly explain in the CCR why it is monitoring for unregulated

contaminants. The explanation may read as follows:

Unr egulated contaminants ar e those for which EP

A has not establish ed drinking water

standar ds. The purpose of unr egulated contaminant monitoring is to assist EP A in

determining the occurr

ence of unr

egulated contaminants in drinking water and whether

futur e r egulation is warranted.

For all PWSs that are subject to the Rule, UCMR monitoring results will be made available to the public through the requirements of the Public Notification Rule (May 4, 2000 at 65 FR 25982). AllUCMR Reference Guide October 2001

40 PWSs are required to notify the public annually of the availability of unregulated contaminant analytical results. Failure to monitor for unregulated contaminants, as required through the UCMR,

will also be reportable under the Public Notification Rule. Because the effective date of the revised public notification rule differs by State, PWS owners and operators should check with th eir State

drinking water agency to determine the applicable public notice requirements. Detailed information

on these reporting requirements can be found in the doc uments P r eparing Y our Drinking W

ater

Consumer Confidence Report (EP A 816-R-99-002) and Public Notification Handbook (EPA 916-R00-010). Both of these documents are available on the W eb at www .epa.gov/safewater

.

The results that will be reported through the CCR and Public Notification Rules should be based on

the same monitoring data that the States and EP A will receive under the UCMR. Information received by EP A will be available to the public via NCOD. Unregulated contaminants not on the UCMR List

would not be required to be reported under the CCR. However , any emerging contaminants of local

or State co ncern may be voluntarily reported to the NCOD to assist EP A in determining if these

contaminants should be considered for establishing health-based standards or advisories.UCMR Reference Guide October 2001

41 

## 7. State Responsibilities

7.1 State Plan Development

States play a very im

portant role in the UCMR program by entering into Partnership Agreement s

(P As) with EP

A to facilitate State participation and implementation, and/or by reviewing the State Monitoring Plan (SMP). The SMP played a critical role in UCMR implementation by allowing States

to: identify which small systems will participate in Assessment Monitoring (List 1); identify which systems will participate in the Screening Surveys (List 2); and specify various aspects of the timing

and location of system monitoring.

All States (regardless of whether or not they entered into a P A with EP A) were asked to review the

initial SMPs for their State. Review of the SMP included ensuring that small systems selected to participate in the UCMR were active and did not purchase all of their water . States were asked to replace ineligible syst

ems with one of the two replacement systems that EP A identified for each

“primary” system selected to monitor for the UCMR. In the SMPs, States were also asked to review inventory information as well as the timing and location of sampling. States were also asked to

review the large system information for those that were selected to conduct Screening Surveys to

ensure that these systems were eligible to conduct the Screening Surveys. Detailed information on

SMP review and modification may be found in the Initial and Final State Plans which EP A sent to each participating State.

7.2 Partnership Agreements

During the UCMR rulemaking process, States suggested that EP A use a Memorandum of Agreement

(which is represented by the P A) rather than the formal adoption of rules and revisions of each State’s primary en

forcement responsibility (primacy) program to allow States to participate in UCMR

implementation. P

A s serve as a key implementation mechanism for the UCMR by identifying and assigning responsibility for important activities that must be conducted to successfully implement the

UCMR. States that entered into an Agreement with EP A are generally responsible for reviewing and

updating their SMPs, and notifying small and large systems of their Ass essment Monitoring and Screening Survey responsibilities prior to scheduled sampling. In general, these States also provide

small systems with instructions (prepared by EP A) on the location, frequency

, and timing of sampling.

The EP A contractor will provide small systems with instructions on the use of sampling equipment,

and handling and shipment of samples.

States that entered into a P A and who have agreed to identify vulnerable sy stems for Pre-Screen

T esting are responsible for notifying the PWS owners/operators of Pre-Screen T esting requirements at least 90 days before sampling must occur . States with an Agreement may also be responsible for

specifying the latitude and longitude of PWS treatment plants by the time of the system’s reporting of

Assessment Monitoring results to the NCOD.

Most States agreed to review and modify their SMPs, including modifying the vulnerable time for sampling, reviewing monitoring dates for systems, and specifying alternate dates if appropriate, and

identifying alternate sampling points for small PWSs as needed. Note that many States which did not

enter into P

As with EP

A modified and reviewed the SMPs for their State.

Other responsibilities some States agreed to accomplish through the P A process included updating

EP A’s Safe Drinking W

ater Information System (SDWIS) based on PWS inventory changes, ensuring

that each PWS facility has an unique identification number

, and providing EP

A with a list of certifiedUCMR Reference Guide October 2001

42 laboratories in the State. Some States have also agreed to collect Assessment Monitoring and Screening Survey samples for small systems and/or Index System(s) selected to monitor in the State.

Some States have also agreed to review UCMR data (in accordance with §141.35(b)) before EP A places data in the NCOD. Some States agreed to assist in obtaining system compliance through

follow-up contact with systems regarding their monitoring responsibilities once informed of system

non-compliance as provided for in §141.40(a)(8) and (b)(1)(v), (vi), (vii) and (viii).

Note that not all States are responsible for performing all of the activities identified above. A State’s actual responsibilities are outlined in the P A as discussed and agreed to by the State and EP A. For

some States, EP

A is responsible for performing some of the activities outlined above.

7.3 State W

aivers for Contaminants Monitored at Large Systems

States may apply to EP

A for a waiver from monitoring requirements for specific contaminants for

large systems. T

o apply for a waiver , States must submit the following to EP A (§141.40(b)(4)):

• a list of the contaminants for which waivers are requested; and

• supporting documentation that demonstrates that eac h contaminant for which a waiver is requested:

– has not been detected in the source waters or distribution systems in the State (and this

presumes that monitoring has been conducted) in the 15 years prior to the application date,

and

– has never been used, stored, disposed, or released in the State in the 15 years prior to the

application date.

If the State can demonstrate that any contaminant meets these criteria, EP A may grant a waiver for that

contaminant.

7.4 Governors’ Petition to Add Contaminants to the Monitoring List

States may also pe tition EP A to add one or more contaminants to the unregulated contaminant

monitoring list. This petition must be signed by the governors of at least seven States and must clearly identify the reason(s) for adding the contaminant to the monitoring list, including:

• the potential public health risk (particularly any information that might be available regarding

disproportionate risks to the health and safety of children);

• the expected occurrence (including any available data);

• any analytical methods that are known or could be used to test for the contaminant(s); and

• any other information that could assist EP A in determ

ining whether the addition of the

contaminant(s) would preclude the listing of another contaminant of a higher public health

concern (§141.40(b)(3)).UCMR Reference Guide October 2001

43 

## 8. Participation of T

ribal Public W ater Systems

EP A Regional offices will work closely with T ribal water systems in their Region to successfully implement the UCMR. EP A Regions were asked to work with the T ribes in reviewing the systems

selected to monitor for the UCMR as identified in the Monitoring Plan for T ribal water systems. Note

that, for the selection of a national representative sample of small systems, all T ribes across the nation

were grouped together (i.e., treated as one State) to ensure that at least two tribal water systems were

selected to monitor for the UCMR. During the selection process, seven small tribal systems were

selected to monitor for UC MR contaminants. No large tribal systems were selected to conduct

Screening Surveys.

W ith respect to T

ribal monitoring, the UCMR program was designed to share the responsibilities for

unregulated contaminant monitoring between the EP A Regions and the selected T ribal systems. The

EP A Regions will serve as a principal line of communication with the T ribes on UCMR issues. In

concert with the T

ribal systems, the EP

A Regions will coordinate the identification and assignment

of responsibilities for import ant activities that should be conducted to successfully implement the UCMR during the five-year implementation cycle for T ribal water systems. Thus, cooperation and

dialogue between the EP

A Regions and T

ribes will be required in determining mutually agreed upon responsibilities, such as the review of system inventory information, sample collection, and shipment

of sample kits to an approved laboratory

.

8.1 T ribal Monitoring Plan Development

EP A Regions were asked to review the table of T ribal systems that were selected to monitor for the

UCMR, and to ensure that the selected systems were active and did not purchase all of their water

from another water system. EP A Regions were also asked to review and modify , if necessary , any inventory information provided in the T ribal system Monitoring Plan. If selected systems were not

eligible to monitor for the UCMR, EP A Headquarters selected a replacement system from the list of alternate tribal systems. Because T r ibal systems were selected on a national basis, an ineligi ble

T ribal water system was not necessarily replaced with another system from the same EP A Region.

After finalization of the Monitoring Plan, the EP A Regions were responsible for notifying their appropriate T

ribal systems in the Moni toring Plan of their responsibilities under the UCMR

(§141.40(b)(1)(v)).

8.2 Sample Collection Responsibility

Some EP A Regions and T

ribal environmental office contacts plan to conduct the sampling at the small

tribal PWSs to ensure the quality of the data collected under the UCMR. In the case of the T r ibal

water systems, the responsibility for this activity is delegated to the EP A Regions whose systems are

included in the sample of primary T ribal water systems (Regions 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9). T ribal assistance

with sample collection is an important contribution which helps provide EP A with the best data possible for decision making.UCMR Reference Guide October 2001

44UCMR Reference Guide October 2001

45 

## 9. EP A Responsibilities

EP A Headquarters (primarily the T echnical Support Center (TSC)) will directly implement the

UCMR, with imple mentation and coordination assistance from EP A Regional contacts, the States,

T erritories, and T

ribes. EP A is responsible for providing implementation guidance documents for

systems, States, and EP

A Regions. EP

A will provide additional ongoing assistance as needed.

9.1 Partnership Agreements and State Monitoring Plan Development

EP A and the Association of State Drinking W ater Administrators (ASD W A ) drafted the Model

Partnership Agreements for use by EP A in coordinating UCMR implementation responsibilities

between the EP

A Regions and the States. EP A Regions also worked closely with States in

establishing mutually-agreed-upon responsibilities in the P As. EP A Headquarters developed initial

SMPs by selecting the national re presentative sample of small systems and providing detailed

instructions on review and update of the initial SMPs. EP A was responsible for incorporating State

modifications to SMPs and returning Final SMPs to States once all modifications were complete.

9.2 Sample Collection and Analysis

The TSC has contracted with a sample coordination con tractor and with laboratories which will

perform all sample analyses for small systems under the UCMR. EP A is providing these contractors

with the information needed for scheduling sampling analysis. EP A will pay for the costs associated

with shipping samples from small PWSs to the contract laboratories and with sampling analysis. The

EP A contract laboratories will then report the results electronically to EP A for the small systems via

the EP A web data entry form discussed in Section 6.

EP A, its contractors, and some States will assist with collecting all of the Assessment Monitoring

samples for Index Systems in each year of the five-year monitoring cycle. However , all large systems

and all other small systems are ex pected to collect their own Assessment Monitoring, Screening

Survey , and Pre-Screen T

e sting samples. However , some States have committed to collecting

samples for the small systems in their State.

9.3 Reviewing Analytical Results and Reporting Requirements

EP A has recently unveiled a web-based reporting database where laboratories will electronically

report UCMR results. For quality assurance, EP A will review all UCMR data before the data are uploaded to the NCOD. All UCMR data will be made available to the public through the NCOD.

EP A will maintain the UCMR database, and will assist States with compliance tracking for the

UCMR, if requested. Refer to Section 6 for a more detailed description of system reporting

requirements.UCMR Reference Guide October 2001

46UCMR Reference Guide October 2001

47 

## 10. Contact Information

For further information on this guidance document, PWSs should contact their State drinking water

agency , the appropriate EP

A Region, or the Safe Drinking W ater Hotline. Small PWSs, States, or

Regions with questions on small system sampling kits should contact the UCMR Implementation

Support Contractor (listed below). Large PWSs should contact the Safe Drinking W ater Hotline.

State drinking water agencies with questions on this guidance should contact their appropriate EP A Region coordinator

, or the UCMR Implementation T eam Leader listed below

.

EP A UCMR Implementation T eam Leader:

Daniel Hautman, T

echnical Support Center

, Standards and Risk Management Division, Office of

Ground W

ater and Drinking W

ater (143), 26 W

est Martin Luthe r King Jr . Dr

. , Cincinnati, OH

45268. (513) 569-7274.

EP A UCMR Implementation Support Contractor:

Robin Silva-W

ilkinson, Great Lakes Environmental Center (GLEC), 739 Hastings Street , T raverse City , MI 49686. (231) 941-2230.

Supplementary Information:

Regional Contacts

I. Chris R

yan, 1 Congress Street, 1 1th Floor , Boston, MA 021 18.

Phone: (617) 918-1567.

II. Robert Poon, 290 Broadway , Room 2432, New Y

ork, NY 10007-1866.

Phone: (212) 637-3821.

III. Michelle Hoover , 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, P A 19103-2029.

Phone: (215) 814-5258.

IV

. Janine Morris, Sam Nunn Federal Center , 61 Forsyth St, SW

, Atlanta, GA 30303.

Phone: (404) 562-9480.

V

. Janet Kuefler

, 77 W est Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604-3507.

Phone: (312) 886-0123.

VI. Andrew J. W

aite, 1445 Ross A

venue, Suite 1200, Dallas, TX 75202.

Phone: (214) 665-7332.

VII. Stan Calow , 901 N. Fifth Street, Kansas City , KS 66101.

Phone: (913) 551-7410.

VIII. Rod Glebe, One Denver Place, 999 18th Street, Suite 500, Denver , CO 80202.

Phone: (303) 312-6627.

IX. Jill Korte, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.

Phone: (415) 744-1853.

X. Gene T

aylor , 1200 Sixth A

venue, Seattle, W

A 98101.

Phone: (206) 553-1389.UCMR Reference Guide October 2001

48UCMR Reference Guide October 2001

49 

## APPENDICES

1. Appendix A: Acronym List

2. Appendix B: Definitions

3. Appendix C: Number of Small Systems in Representative Sample, by

StateUCMR Reference Guide October 2001

50UCMR Reference Guide October 2001

A - 1 Appendix A — Acronym List

2,4-DNT - 2,4-dinitrotoluene

2,6-DNT - 2,6-dinitrotoluene

4,4'-DDE - 4,4'-dichloro dichlorophenyl ethylene, a degradation product of DDT

AOAC - Association of Official Analytical Chemists

APHA - American Public Health Association

ASDW A - Association of State Drinking W ater Administrators

ASTM - American Society for T esting and Materials

CAS - Chemical Abstract Service

CCL - Candidate Contaminant List

CCR - Consumer Confidence Reports

CDX - Central Data Exchange

CFR - Code of Federal Regulations

CFU/100 mL - colony forming units per 100 milliliters

CWS - community water system

DBP - disinfection byproducts

DCP A - dimethyl tetrachloroterephthalate, chemical name of the herbicide dacthal

DDT - dichloro diphenyl trichloroethane, a general insecticide

EP - entry point

EP A - Environmental Protection Agency

EPTC - s-ethyl-dipropylthiocarbamate, an herbicide

EPTDS - Entry Point to the Distribution System

ESA - ethanesulfonic acid, a degradation product of alachlor

FR - Federal Register

GLI method - Great Lakes Instruments method

LD - lowest disinfectant residual

MD - midpoint of the distribution system

mg/L - milligrams per liter

MR - maximum residence time in the distribution system

MRL - minimum reporting level

MTBE - methyl-tert-butyl-ether , a gasoline additive

NCOD - National Drinking W ater Contaminant Occurrence Database

NERL - National Environmental Research Laboratory

NTIS - National T echnical Information Service

NTNCWS - non-transient non-community water system

OGWDW - Office of Ground W ater and Drinking W

aterUCMR Reference Guide October 2001

A - 2 P A - Partnership Agreement

PWS - Public W ater System

QC - quality control

RDS - raw duplicate sample

RDX - hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine

RFS - raw field sample

RPD - relative percent difference

SDW A - Safe Drinking W ater Act

SDW ARS - Safe Drinking W ater Accession and Review System

SDWIS - Safe Drinking W ater Information System

SM - Standard Methods

SMP - State Monitoring Plan

SR - source/raw water sampling point, prior to treatment

TDS - treated duplicate sample

TFS - treated field sample

TSC - T

echnical Support Center

TNCWS - transient non-community water system

TTHM - T otal T rihalomethane

UCMR - Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulations/Rule

μg/L - micrograms per liter

VOC - volatile organic compound

WQP - water quality parameterUCMR Reference Guide October 2001

B - 1 Appendix B — Definitions

Assessment Monitoring means sampling, testing, an d reporting of listed contaminants that have available analytical methods and for which preliminary data indicate their p ossible occurrence in drinking water

. Assessment Monitoring will be conducted for the UCMR (1999) List 1 contaminants.

Index Systems means a limited number of small CWSs and NTNCW Ss, selected from the Assessment

Monitoring systems in State Plans, that will be required to provide more detailed and frequent monitoring for the UCMR (1999) List 1 contaminants (§141.40(a)(6)). In addition to the reporting information required for

Assessment Monitoring, the Index Systems must also report information on PWS operating conditions (such

as water source, pumping rates, and environmental setting) (§141.40(a)(6)). These PWSs must monitor each year of the 5-year UCMR cycle, with EP A paying for all reasonable monitoring costs (§141.40(a)(4)(i)(A)).

Listed contaminant

means a contaminant identified as an analyte in T able 1, 141.40(a)(3) of the UCMR. T o distinguish the current 1999 UCMR listed contaminants from potential future UCMR listed contaminants, all

references to UCMR contaminant lists will identify the appropriate year in parentheses immediately following

the acronym UCMR and before the referenced list. For example, the contaminants included in the UCMR

(1999) List include the component lists identified as UCMR (1999) List 1, UCMR (1999) List 2 and UCMR

(1999) List 3 contaminants.

Listing cycle means the 5-year period for which each revised UCMR list is effective and during which no more than 30 unregulated contaminants from the list may be required to be monitored.

Monitor ed systems means all community water systems serving more than 10,000 people, and the national

representative sample of community and non-transient non-community water systems serving 10,000 or fewer

people that are selected to be part of a State Plan for the UCMR.

Monitoring (as distinct from Assessment Monitoring) means all aspects of determining the quality of drinking

water relative to the listed contaminants. These aspects include drinking water sampling and testing, and the

reviewing, reporting, and submission to EP A of analytical results.

Most vulnerable systems ( or Systems most vulnerable) means a subset of 5 to not more than 25 PWSs of all

monitored PWSs in a State that are determined by that State in consultation with the EP A Regional Office to be most likely to have the listed contaminants occur in their drinking waters, considering the characteristics of

the listed contaminants, precipitation, PWS operation, and environmental conditions (soils, geology and land

use).

Pr e-Scr een T esting means sampling, tes ting, and reporting of the listed contaminants that may have newly emerged as drinking water concerns and, in most cases, for which methods are in an early stage of development.

Pre-Screen T esting will be conducted by a limited number of PWSs (up to 200). Pre-Screen T esting will be

conducted for the UCMR (1999) List 3 contaminants.

Random Sampling is a statistical sampling method by which each member of the population has an equal probability of bein g selected as part of a sample (the sample being a small subset of the population which

represents the population as a whole).

Repr esentative Sample (or National Repr esen tative Sample ) means a small subset of all community and

non-transient non-community water systems serving 10,000 or fewer people which EP A selects using a random

number generator

. The PWSs in the representative sample are selected using a stratified random sampling

process that ensures that this small subset of PWSs will be representative of all small PWSs nationally

.

Sampling means the act of collecting water from the appropriate location in a public water system (from the

applicable point from an intake or well to the end of a distribution line, or in some limited cases, a residential tap) following proper methods for the particular contaminant or group of contaminants.UCMR Reference Guide October 2001

B - 2 Sampling Point

means a unique location where samples are to be collected.

Scr eening Survey means sampling, testing, and reporting of the List 2 contaminants. These contaminants have

analytical methods which have been recently developed, and have uncertain potential for occurrence in drinking

water

.

State means, each of the fifty States, the District of Columbia, U.S. T e rritories, and T ribal lands. For the national representative sample, Guam, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, the

V irgin Islands, and American Samoa are each treated as an individual State. All T r ibal water systems in the

U.S. that have status as a State under Section 1451 of the Safe Drinking W ater Act for this program will be considered collectively as one State for the purposes of selecting a representative sample of small PWSs.

State Monitoring Plan ( or State Plan) means a State's portion of the national representative sample of CWSs

and NTNCWSs serving 10,000 or fewer people which must monitor for unregulated contaminants (Assessment

Monitoring, Screening Survey(s) and Index Systems) and all large PWSs (PWSs serving greater than 10,000 people) which are required to monitor for Screening Survey contaminants. A State Plan will also include the

PWSs required to conduct Pre-Screen T esting, selected from the State’s designation of vulnerable PWSs.

Stratified Random Sampling is a procedure to draw a random sample from a population that has been divided

into subpopulations or strata, with each stratum comprised of a population subset sharing common characteristics. Random samples are selected from each stratum proportional to that stratum’s proportion of

the entire population. The aggregate random sample (compiled from all the strata samples) provides a random sample of the entire population that reflects the proportional distribution of characteristics of the population.

In the context of the UCMR, the population served by public water systems was stratified by size (with size

categories of 500 or fewer people served, 501 to 3,300 people served, and 3,301 to 10,000 people served) and by water source type supplying the water system (ground water or surface water). This stratification was done

to ensure that PWSs randomly selected as nationally representative sample PWSs would proportionally reflect the actual number of size and water type categories nationally

.

T esting means, for the purposes of the UCMR and distinct from Pr e-Scr een T esting

, the submission and/or

s hipment of samples following appropriate preservation practices to protect the integrity of the sample; the

chemical, radiological, physical and/or microbiological analysis of samples; and the reporting of the sample’s analytical results for evaluation. T esting is a subset of activities defined as monitoring

.

Unr egulated contaminants means chemical, microbiological, radiological and other substances that occur in drinking water or sources of drinking water that are not currently regulated under the federal drinking water

program. EP

A has not issued standards for these substances in drinking water (i.e., maximum contaminant levels or treatment technology requirements).

V ulnerable time (or vulnerable period ) means the time of the year determined as the most likely to have the listed group of contaminants present at their highest concentrations or densities in drinking water

.UCMR Reference Guide October 2001

C - 1 Appendix C — Number of Small Systems in Representative Sample, by State

State/T ribe/T erritory Number of Small Systems Selected for Assessment Monitoring

Number of CWS Number of NTNCWS T otal Number of

Systems

EP A Region 1

Connecticut 4 2 6

Maine 3 3 6

Massachusetts 1 1 1 12

New Hampshire 5 1 6

Rhode Island 2 0 2

V ermont 4 0 4

Region 1 T

otal 29 7 36

EP A Region 2

New Jersey 14 2 16

New Y ork 22 7 29

Puerto Rico 8 1 9

V irgin Islands 1 1 2

Region 2 T

otal 45 1 1 56

EP A Region 3

Delaware 2 0 2

Maryland 6 2 8

Pennsylvania 26 1 1 37

V irginia 12 4 16

W est V irginia 9 1 10

Region 3 T

otal 55 18 73

EP A Region 4

Alabama 15 0 15

Florida 28 4 32

Georgia 20 2 22

Kentucky 9 0 9

Mississippi 28 2 30

North Carolina 20 2 22

South Carolina 9 2 1 1UCMR Reference Guide October 2001

State/T ribe/T erritory Number of Small Systems Selected for Assessment Monitoring

Number of CWS Number of NTNCWS T otal Number of

Systems

C - 2 T ennessee 13 1 14

Region 4 T

otal 142 13 155

EP A Region 5

Illinois 27 1 28

Indiana 18 2 20

Michigan 20 4 24

Minnesota 14 2 16

Ohio 23 5 28

Wisconsin 19 2 21

Region 5 T

otal 121 16 137

EP A Region 6

Arkansas 13 0 13

Louisiana 26 1 27

New Mexico 6 2 8

Oklahoma 15 0 15

T exas 66 5 71

Region 6 T

otal 126 8 134

EP A Region 7

Iowa 16 0 16

Kansas 12 0 12

Missouri 18 2 20

Nebraska 7 1 8

Region 7 T

otal 53 3 56

EP A Region 8

Colorado 9 1 10

Montana 5 1 6

North Dakota 4 0 4

South Dakota 4 0 4

Utah 7 0 7

W yoming 2 1 3UCMR Reference Guide October 2001

State/T ribe/T erritory Number of Small Systems Selected for Assessment Monitoring

Number of CWS Number of NTNCWS T otal Number of

Systems

C - 3 Region 8 T

otal 31 3 34

EP A Region 9

American Samoa 2 0 2

Arizona 12 0 12

California 43 5 48

Guam 1 0 1

Hawaii 3 0 3

Mariana Islands 2 0 2

Nevada 3 1 4

Region 9 T

otal 66 6 72

EP A Region 10

Alaska 4 0 4

Idaho 8 0 8

Oregon 9 2 1 1

W ashington 15 2 17

Region 10 T

otal 36 4 40

T ribal Systems

T otal for T

ribes 6 1 7

National T

otal 710 90 800