# Public Webinar: Revisionst o the Unregulated Contaminant

Monitoring Rule (UCMR 4) M eeting Presentations

Held J anuary 13 , 201 6 USEPA, Office ofG round Water and Drinking W ater

Office of Water (MLK 140) EPA 815 -R-16-00 1 January 2016

# Revision s to the Unregulated

Contamina nt Monitoring Rule (UCMR 4) for Public Water Systems

PublicWebinar Janua ry 13, 2016 Meetingstarts at 1:00 p.m. E.T.

USEP A Offic e of Ground Water and Drinking Water



# WELC OME Gregory J. Carroll, USEPAU.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 3 

# Gene ral Meeting Information

• Purpose • Review of EPA’s proposed rule and discussion with the pub lic 

# • Webinar lines are muted to minimize background noise • 10 min ute break at approximately 2:30 p.m. 

# • Public questions and discussion at the end of the webinar

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 4



# Agenda 1:00 Intro duction (15 minu tes) 

### 1:15 Prop osed UCMR 4 (30 minu tes) 1:45 UCMR 4 S ampling Design (30 minu tes) 2:15 UCMR 4 R eporting (15 minu tes) 2:30 Break (10 minut es) 2:40 UCMR 4 L aboratory Approval Process & MRLs (20 minu tes) 3:00 S ubmitting Publi c Comments (5 minu tes) 3:05 Sta tements from Webinar Parti cipants, Q&A and Disc ussion (100 minu tes) 4:45 Clos ing Remarks (5 minu tes)

# Introduction Bren da Parris, USEPA

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 6 

# UCMR 4 Introduction Overview

• Regu latory background for UCMR • Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) authority • Relatio nship to: • Candid ate Contaminant List (CCL) • Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR) • Regu latory Determination • Six - YearReview 

# • UCMR • Objectives • Appr oach • Implem entationU.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 7



# SDWA

• Passed in 1974, SDWA authorized EPA to set enfor ceable health standards for contaminants in drinking water • Nation al Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs) 

# • 1996 SDWA amendments changed the process of developin g and reviewing NPDWRs • CCL • UCMR • Regulat ory Determination • Six - Year R eview



# Gene ral Flow of SDWA Regulatory Processes Opportunity for public comment

If yes List unregulated contaminants* Contaminant Candidate List

Review & decide whether to revise the standard Six-Year Review Develop or revise the drinking water standard* Regulation Development If yes List and collect monitoring data for up to 30 unregulated contaminants Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule Determine whether at least five need a drinking water standard* Regulatory Determinations

*For these three stages, we like to have increased specificity and confidence in the type of supporting data used (e.g. health and occurrence). SDWA requires that we used best available data to make our decisions. January 2016 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 8U.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 9



# CCL

• List o f priority unregulated contaminants • Chemic als and microbes • Publish ed every five years • Known or anticipated to occur in public water systems (PWSs) • May require regulation under SDWA

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 10



# Dra ft CCL 4

• Pub lished February 4, 2015 • Carri ed forward the final list of CCL 3 contaminants (multi - step process evaluating ~7,500 contaminants) • Requ ested and evaluated contaminant nominations from the public • Eval uated any new data from previous negative 

# regula tory determinations In e stablishing the proposed list of contaminants for UCMR 4, EPA started with t his priority set of contaminants, which includes 100 chemicals or

chem ical groups and 12 micro besU.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 11



# UCMR

• SDWAsection 1445(a)(2), as amended in 1996, redesigned the UCMR Program; requirements 

# includ ed: • •

• • • Issue lis t of no more than 30 unregulated contaminants, once ev ery 5 years Require PWSs serving population >10,000 people as well as a nationall y representative sample of PWSs serving ≤10,000 people to monitor Store analytical results in the National Drinking Water Contam inant Occurrence Database (NCOD) Direct implementation – EPA man ages program in partnershi p with states EPA fun ds testing/analytical costs for small PWSs

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 12



# UCMR History

•

• • • UCMR 1 (2 001 - 2005, 26 contaminants) UCMR 2 (2 007 - 2011, 25 contaminants) UCMR 3 (2 012 - 2016, 30contaminants) • Monit oring concluded in 2015 • Data review will occur in 2016 

# UCMR 4 (2 017 - 2021, 30contaminants) • 

## • Prop osed in the FR on December 11, 2015 

## Final publication anticipated in late 2016/early 2017 Nation al occurrence data publically available: http://www.e pa.gov/dwucmr/occurrence - data - unregu lated cont aminant - monit oring - ruleU.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 13



# Objectiveof UCMR Program

• Collect national occurrence data for suspected 

# drinking wa ter contaminants that do not have health - based standards set under the SDWA • Drink ing water occurrence information is used to supp ort future regulatory actions to protect public healt h • Publicwill benefit from information about whether or not unregulated contaminants are present in their drink ing water

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 14



# UCMR Ap proach

• UCMR established a 3 - tiered approach for monitoring • Assessment Monitoring (List 1) • Screen ing Survey (List 2) • Pre - Screen Testing (List 3) 

# • Based on: • Avail ability and complexity of analytical methods • Labo ratory capacity • Samp ling frequency • Relevan t universe of PWSs • Other considerations (e.g., cost/burden)U.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 15 

# Typical UCMRSystem Applicability

System Type Systems Serving

> 10,000 Systems Serving

≤ 10,000 Assessme nt Monitoring (Li st 1 Contaminants) CWS 1 

### & NTN CWS 2 

### All systems (~4,200) 800 rando mly selected systems 

### Screening Survey (Li st 2 Contaminants) CWS& NTNCWS All systems (~410) serving more than 100,000, and ~320 rando mly selected systems serving 10,001 to 100,000 480 rando mly selected systems 

### Pre - Screen Testing (Li st 3 Con taminants) Maybe conducted by a limited number of PWSs 1 Comm unity Water System 2 Non - tra nsient Non - com munity Water System

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 16



# EPA Imp lementation Roles

• Revie w, track and determine PWS applicability and monitoring progress • Coor dinate Laboratory Approval Program • Provide technical support for Regions, states, PWSs and laboratories • Coor dinate outreach • Assis t and support Regional compliance effortsU.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 17



# EPA Imp lementation Roles

• Small PWS support: • EPA fu nds small system testing including kits, sample 

## analy sis and shipping • Manag es sample kit distribution • Maint ains lab and implementation contracts to support UCMR • Respon sible for data review 

# • Larg e and small PWS support: • Safe Drinking Water Accession and Review System (SDWARS) reportin g system and users • Prepar es data for NCOD

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 18 

# Stat es’ Role in the UCMR 4 Program

• Sta te participation is voluntary • EPA has established Partnership Agreements (PAs) und er previous UCMRs and will continue to do so for UCMR 4 • Stat es, tribes and territories help EPA implement the UCMR pro gram; help to ensure high data quality • Review and revise State Monitoring Plans (SMPs) • Upda te system information to preload into SDWARS • Review and approve proposed Ground Water Representative Mon itoring Plans (GWRMPs) • Comp liance assistance • Notific ation and instructions for systemsU.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 19



# Regula tory Determination

• Deter mine which contaminants may have an adverse effect on human health • Deter mine if a contaminant occurs in drinking water at a freq uency and at levels of public health concern • Meanin gful opportunity for health risk reduction • Made e very five years • Deter minations for at least five contaminants from the CCL • UCMR helps provide the necessary data

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 20



# Six -Year Review

• Revie ws existing NPDWRs and determines if a revis ion is appropriate • Inclu des the re - evalua tion of exposure to regulated contamin ants based on their health effects and occurr ence in drinking water 

# • Any revisions to existing NPDWRs must maintain prot ection or provide for greater health protection • Made ev ery six years

# Proposed UCMR 4 Melissa Simic, USEPA

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 22 

# Propos ed UCMR 4 - Overview

• Timeline • Not able proposed changes from UCMR 3 • Cont aminant selection process • Propos ed contaminants and analytical methods • Estima ted costs

# UCMR 4 Time line

2017 2015 2016 2021 2018 - 2020 2013 - 2014

UCMR 4 Stakeholder Meeting January 13, 2016 May 15, 2013 June 25, 2014 UCMR 4 Stakeholder Meetings UCMR 4 Development Review Rule Drafting

Complete Reporting/ Analysis of Data Late 2016/ Early 2017 UCMR 4 Final Rule Published December 11, 2015 UCMR 4 Proposal Published

Public Comment Period Ends February 9, 2016 UCMR 4 Monitoring Pre-implementation Activities Public Comment Period Begins

December 31, 2015 Applicability Date Laboratory Approval Process GWRMP Submittals

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 23

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 24



# Notable Proposed Changes

• Analyt es • Applic ability • Monito ring time f rame • Sampling frequency • Sampling l ocations • ReportingrequirementsU.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 25 

# UCMR 4Candidate Contaminants – Information Compendium • Provides t he initial list of contaminants that EPA 

# consid ered • Outlines th e contaminant prioritization process • Indic ates the reason a contaminant was not included on the proposed list • Provides sup porting information for each of the propos ed contaminants

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 26 

# UCMR 4Candidate Contaminants – Information Compendium • Primar y source for the information is the CCL program • Review ed and evaluated other publically available data sour ces 

# • General ly includes five sections: • Backgrou nd & Use • Health Effects • Pro duction & Release • Occurrence in Water • Persis tence & Mobility 

# • The do cument is located in the docket

# UCMR 4 Prioritization Proce ss

45 CCL + 48 related non-CCL analytes 1



### [16 methods] UCMR 4 Candidates: 31 CCL + 18 related non-CCL analytes [9 methods] + other contaminants u nder consideration 2 

### Propose up to 30 contaminants for comment • Not monitored for on UCMR 2 or UCMR 3 • Anticipated to have national occurrence • Have a completed & validated drinking water method Most contaminants in method group: • Have an available health assessment to facilitate regulatory determinations and/or high public concern • Have critical health endpoints (e.g., likely and suggestive carcinogens), active-use pesticides • Have an occurrence data gap

• Workgroup and stakeholder input • Cost-effective method group • Further evaluation of health and occurrence data • Implementation factors (e.g., laboratory capacity)

After considering comments, publish up to 30 contaminants for UCMR 4 monitoring tentatively starting in 2018 1 Analytes with potential health effects of concern that can be measured concurrently, using the analytical methods for the CCL contaminants; creates a more cost-effective design and reduces the likelihood of needing to include them in a subsequent UCMR. 2 Workgroup or stakeholder nominations 

### [1 00 chemicals or chemical groups +

12 microbes] Draft Contaminant Candidate List (CCL) 4

27



# Proposed UCMR 4 Analytes ADDA ELISA “to tal microcystins” EPA Meth od 544 (SPE LC/MS/MS ) mic rocystin - LA mic rocystin - RR mic rocystin - LF mic rocystin - YR mic rocystin - LR nod ularin mic rocystin - LY EPA Meth od 545 (LC/ECI - MS/M S ) ana toxin - a cyl indrospermopsin EPA Meth od 200.8 ( ICP - MS) or alt ernate SM or ASTM germa nium man ganese EPA Meth od 525.3 (SPE GC/MS ) alph a - hexachlorocyclohexane pro fenofos chlo rpyrifos tebu conazole dimeth ipin tot al permethrin (cis - & tr ans - ) ethop rop tribu fos oxyfluorfen EPA Meth od 552.3 (GC/ECD) or 557 ( IC/E CI - MS/M S) HAA5 (regulated) HAA9 HAA6 Br EPA Meth od 541 ( GC/MS ) 1 - but anol 2 - pro pen - 1 - ol 2 - meth oxyethanol

EPA Meth od 530 ( GC/MS ) butylated hydroxyanisole qui nolone o - tol uidine EPA invites public comment on the following conta minants that were considered by the wor kgroup but not included in the proposed list: Legionella pneumophila and Mycobacterium avium , amm onia , and the pesticides vinc lozolin , hexazinone and disu lfoton .U.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 29



# Cyanotoxin s EPA M ethod 544 (LC/MS/MS 1 

## ) Analyt e EPA He alth

Adviso ry (HA) Critic al Health Effect Occur rence microcystin - LR 1.6 μg /L (ten - day HAfor schoo l - age chi ldren and adult s); 0.3 μg /L (ten - day HAfor bottl e - fed in fants and youngchildren) Liver e ffects Micro cystins in water suppl ies: 77 samples from 33 wa ter supplies; Range of detects = <0.15 - 0.36 μg/L (Haddix et al., 2007) microcystin - LA microcystin - LF microcystin - LY microcystin - RR microcystin -YR nodular in Not a vailable Liver t oxicity Not a vailable 1 Liqui d Chromatography/Tandem Mass Spectrometry 2 Total microcystins will also be measured by ADDA ELISA; EPA HA applies 2

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 30



# Cyanotoxin s EPA Method 54 5 (LC/ESI-MS/MS 1 

## ) Analyt e EPA He alth

Adviso ry (HA) Critic al Health Effect Occur rence anatox in - a Not a vailable Target s nervous system Flori da Waters (Burns 2008) , drink ing water max = 8 .46 μg/L cylind rospermopsin 3 μg/L(ten - day HAfor schoo l - age chi ldren throu gh adults); 0.7 μg /L (ten - day HAfor bottl e - fed in fants and youngchildren) Increa sed relative kidney weight and decreas ed urinary protei n Flori da Waters (Burns

2008) , drink ing water range of detects = 8 - 97 μg/L

1 Liqui d Chromatography Electrospray Ioniza tion - Tande m Mass Sp ectrometryU.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 31



# Metals EPAMethod 200.8 1 

## (ICP - MS 2 

## ) Anal yte Heal th Reference

Level (HRL) Cri tical Heal th Effect Occ urrence ger manium 7.4 4 μg/L 3 Kidn ey, ureter, bladder cha nges in tubules NIR S 4 dri nking wat er ran ge of detects = 26 - 230 μg/L; detected in 4 out of 989 samples manga nese 300μg/L Cent ral nervous system effects NIR S drinking water

medi an = 11.96 μg/L; detec ted in 672 out of 989 samples
1 Meta ls can also be measured by alternate Standard Methods (SM) 3125 or SM 3125 - 09 or ASTM International D5673 - 10 2 Indu ctively Coupled Plasma - Mass S pectrometry 3 Base d on OW’s evaluation of the dose information in the critical study, the HRL should be about ten times larger (i.e., 0.74 4 to 7.44 μg/L) 4 Natio nal Inorganics and Radionuclides Survey, 1984 - 1986

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 32



# Pesticides EPAMethod 525.3 (SPE GC/MS 1 

## ) Anal yte Hea lth Reference

Level (HRL) Cri tical Heal th Effect Occ urrence alph a hexa chlorocyclohexane 0.0 06 μg/L Canc er NAW QA 2 amb ient wat er medi an = 0.011 μg/L; detec ted in 21 out of 7,119 sam ples chlo rpyrifos Notavailable Sig nificant plasma and RBC cho linesterase inhibition PDP 3 dri nking water = not detec ted in the 13 sites sam pled dimeth ipin 153 μg/L Kidn ey, lungs, duodenum, liver, glandular stomach, heart, aortic artery, and test es toxicity; decreased bod y weight gain TRI 4 = 87 pounds released in 1 sta te in 2010

1 Sol id Phase Extraction and Capillary Column Gas Chrom atography - Mass Spe ctrometry 2 USGS, National Wate r- Quali ty Assessment Program (NAW QA) 3 Pesti cide Data Program (PDP) 4 Tox ic Relea se Inventory (TRI)U.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 33



# Pesticides EPAMethod 525.3 (SPE GC/MS) Anal yte Hea lth Reference

Level (HRL) Cri tical Heal th Effect Occ urrence etho prop 1.2 5 μg/L Canc er PDP dr inking water = not detec ted in the 13 sites sam pled oxyfluorfen 210μg/L 5 Liver toxicity PDP dr inking water = not detec ted in the 13 sites sam pled profenofos 0.3 5 μg/L Plas ma and RBC cho linesterase (ChE) inh ibition PDP dr inking water = not detec ted in the 13 sites sam pled 5 Human Health Benchmark for Pesticides

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 34



# Pesticides EPAMethod 525.3 (SPE GC/MS) Anal yte Hea lth Reference

Level (HRL) Cri tical Heal th Effect Occ urrence tebu conazole 210μg/L Decreased body weights, abs olute brain weights, brain meas urements and motor act ivity in offspring PDP dr inking water median detec t = 0.0 1 μg/L; detected at 4 out of 13 sites tot al permethrin (cis - & trans - ) 3.6 5 μg/L Canc er Cali fornia Drinking Water Mon itoring Data = not detec ted in the 35 PWSs sam pled tribu fos 7 μg /L Plas ma cholinesterase (ChE) inh ibition PDP dr inking water = not detec ted in the 13 sites sam pled

# Haloace tic Acids (HAAs) EPA Method 552.3 (GC - ECD ) 1 or E PA Method 557 (IC - ESI - MS/M S) 2 Anal yte MCLG 3 Hea lth Effects Occ urrence 4 (Medi an conc. and # dete ctions) HAA6 Br

Group HAA5

Group HAA9

Group b romoc hloroacetic acid (BCAA) Not avai lable Clea r evidence of carcinogenicity

(NTP 2009); Reproductive effects 3.3 μg/ L; 263 of 291 systems

HAA 6Br HAA9 b romod ichloroacetic acid (BDCAA) Not avai lable Clea r evidence of carcinogenicity

(NTP 2014) 3.2 μg/ L; 90 of 102 sys tems c hlorodibromoacetic acid (CDBAA) Not avai lable 3.2 μg/ L; 66 of 101 systems t rib romoacetic acid (TBAA) Not avai lable 5 μg/ L; 15 of 98 sys tems m onobromoacetic acid (MBAA) Not avai lable 1.5 μg/ L; 124of 291 systems HAA 5 Grou p MCL 5 = 60 μg/L d ibromoacetic acid (DBAA) Not avai lable Clea r evidence of carcinogenicity in

mice (NTP 2007) 2.3 μg/ L; 202 of 291 systems d ichl oroacetic acid (DCAA) 0 μg/L Canc er 11 μg/ L; 272 of 291 systems m onoch loroacetic acid (MCAA) 70 μg/L Decrea sed bod y, liver, kidney and spl een weights 3 μg/ L; 215 of 290 systems t rich loroacetic acid (TCAA) 20 μg/L Liver chan ges 9.7 μg/ L; 259 of 291 systems 1 Gas Chromatography with Electron Capture Detection 2 Ion Chromatography Electrospray Ionization Tandem Mass Spectrometry 3 MCL Gs established under the Stage 1 and Stage 2 DBPRs 4 Disi nfection By - pro duct Information Collection Rule (DBP ICR) (1997 - 1998) 5 The HAA5 group is currently regulated in drinking water at a MCL of 60 μg/L per Stage 1 and Stage 2 DBPRs 35

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 36



# Alcohols EPAMethod 541 ( GC/MS 1 

## ) Anal yte Heal th Reference

Level (HRL) Cri tical Heal th

Effect Usage 1 - buta nol 700μg/L Abn ormally diminished act ivity in the bod y/organs; inability to con trol muscles TRI 2 = 11, 093,815 pounds

relea sed in 47 states in 2010 2 - prope n - 1 - ol 35 μg/L Imp aired kidney fun ction and increased rela tive liver, spleen and kid ney weights TRI = 445 ,833 pounds

relea sed in 13 states in 2010 2 - methoxyethanol 21 μg/L Reproductive effects TRI = 23, 240 pounds relea sed in 16 states in 2010 1 Gas Chromatography - Mass Spectrometry 2 Tox ic Release Inventory (TRI)U.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 37 

# Semivola tile Organic Chemicals

EPAMethod 530 ( GC/MS ) Anal yte Heal th Reference

Level (HRL) Cri tical Heal th

Effect 

### Usage butyl ated hydroxyanisole 0.5 81 μg/L Chan ges in liver weight NRE C 2 Medi an = 0.1 μg/L; detected at 2 out of 85 sites o - tol uidine 0.1 94 μg/L Canc er TRI 3 = 6,6 23 pounds relea sed in 1 state in 2010 quino line 0.0 1 μg/L Canc er TRI = 15, 789 pounds relea sed in 9 states in 2010 1 Gas Chromatography - Mass Spe ctrometry 2 USGS , Nati onal Reconnaissance of Emerging Contaminants (NREC) Surface Water Data, 1999 - 2004 3 Tox ic Release Inventory (TRI)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 38 

# Add itional Contaminants and Indicators Considered for UCMR 4 • Legio nella pneumophila (on C CL 4) • Met hod was not ready at the time of proposal • Though t to be largely a premise plumbing issue • Healt h effects: • Legionn aire’s Disease and Pontiac Fever 

# • 52 r eported waterborne disease outbreaks affecting 225 p eople between 1990 and 2010 (CDC MMWR) 

# • OW Draft (October 2015) - Technolo gies for Legion ella Control: Scientific Literature Review: • http ://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015 - 10/docum ents/drafttechlegionellaoct2015.pdfU.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 39 

# Add itional Contaminants and Indicators Considered for UCMR 4 • Mycob acterium avium (on C CL 4) • Met hod was not ready at the time of proposal • Healt h effects: • Pulmo nary disease, lymphadenitis, post - traum atic wound infe ction 

# • No r eported outbreaks between 1990 and 2008 (CDC MMWR )

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 40 

# Add itional Contaminants and Indicators Considered for UCMR 4 • Ammonia • Maybe oxidized to nitrite and nitrate (contaminants of grea ter toxicological concern) via nitrification • Nitrit e/Nitrate are regulated in drinking water: MCLG/MCL 1,000 and 10,000 μg/L respectively based on meth emoglobinemia 

## • The NP DWR for nitrite and nitrate requires compliance mon itoring at each entry point to the distribution system (EPTDS) • Limit ed research indicates that nitrification downstream of EPTDS (i.e., in distribution system) may lead to higher nitrite and/or 

## nitrate exposure (especially for PWSs using chloramine disinfection) • Meas uring ammonia at entry point could serve as a surrogate for nitr ification potentialU.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 41 

# Add itional Contaminants and Indicators Considered for UCMR 4

• Thr ee pesticides in method 525.3 were identified as lowerpriority based on data evaluation: • Disu lfoton: Pro duction cancelled 2009; non - cancer endpo int; not detected in 2,300 samples from 295 systems (UCMR 1 SS 2001 - 200 3); not persistent to moderately persis tent in the environment; very regionalized usage • Hexa zinone: Not on CCL 4; non - cancer endpoint; not det ected in 221 samples (PMP, 1999); moderately persistent to persistent in the environment • Vin clozolin: No c urrent usage; non - cancer endpoint; was beingphased out in 2004; persistent in the environment

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 42



# Propos ed Contaminants

• EPA invites comments on: • The propo sed contaminants and their assoc iated methods • The s ix additional contaminants cons idered for UCMR 4, but not incl uded on the proposed list • Addi tional contaminants that may not have been considered for UCMR 4 • Sug gestions for which 

## cont aminant(s) to remove if others are add ed • Addi tional consensus analytical method s for the proposed contam inantsU.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 43



# UCMR 4 Cost Estimates Average Annual Cost per Respondent (2017 - 2021)

Labor Non - labor

(metho ds & shipping) Labor p lus Non - labor Small syst ems $ 100 $0 $ 100 Large syst ems $ 410 $ 3,630 $ 4,040 Verylarge systems $ 750 $ 9,780 $ 10,530 Stat es $8,990 $0 $8,990 EPA $ 815,240 $ 3,864,860 $ 4,680,100

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 44



# UCMR 4 Cost Estimates Respon dent Avg. A nnual Cost A ll Respondents ( 2017 - 2021 ) Smal l syst ems (25 - 10,0 00), including labo r only(non - labo r cost s paid for by EPA) $0.1 6 m Larg e syst ems (10, 001 - 100, 000), including labor and non - labo r cost s $15. 7 m Very larg e s ystem s (100 ,001 and greater), including labor and non - labo r costs $4.3 m Stat es, including labor costs related to implementation coor dination $0.5 0 m EPA, including labor for implementation, non - labo r for small syst em testing $4.7 m AVERAGE ANNUALNATIONAL TOTAL $ 25.3m *Note that totals may not equal the sum of components due to rounding. *EPA as sumes that one - third of the systems would monitor during each of the three monitoring years.

# UCMR 4 Sampling Design Bren da Parris, USEPA

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 46 

# UCMR 4 Sampling Design Overview

• Sys tem applicability • Sampling frequency and timing • Revis ed sampling locations • Phased sample - analysis for microcystins • Haloace tic acid (HAA) groups • Sour ce water sampling 

# • Represen tative sampling • Schedules

# System Applicability: Nati onal Sample Assessment Monitoring Design (List 1) System Size (# of people served) 10 Cyan otoxins 20 Add itional Che micals Tot al # of Systems per Siz e Category Smal l systems 1 

### (25 – 10,000) 800 rando mly selected SW or

GWUD I systems 800 rando mly selected SW, GWUD I and GW systems 1,600 Larg e systems 2 

### (10,001 and over ) All SW or GWUDI systems

(1,987) All SW, GWUDI and GW systems (4,292) 4,292 TOT AL 2,787 5,092 5,892 1 Tot al for small systems is additive because these systems would only be selected for one component of UCMR 4 sam pling (10 cyanotoxins or 20 additional chemicals). EPA would pay for all analytical costs associated with mon itoring at small systems. 2 Large system counts are approximate. The number of large systems is not additive. All SW and GWUDI systems wou ld monitor for cyanotoxins; those same systems would also monitor for the 20 additional List 1 chemicals, as wou ld the large GW systems. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 47

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 48 

# Sampling Frequency and Timing

• Sample collection t ime f rame • Marc h through November • Exclu de December, January and February • Exce pt for re - sampling events, as needed 

# • Better reflect the times of year when con taminants are more likely to occur in drinking 

# wat er (e.g., cyanotoxins and pesticides) • Monito ring will take place over a three - year p eriod (2018 - 2020)

# Sampling Frequency and Timing Con taminant Typ e Wat er Source

Typ e Time F rame Fre quency List 1 Cont aminants - Cyanot oxins SW or G WUDI March – November You must monitor twice a month for four con secutive months (total of eight sampling event s). Sample events must occur two weeks apa rt.



### List 1 Cont aminants – Addit ional Chem icals SW or GWUDI March – November You must monitor four times during your 12 - mon th monitoring period. Sample events must occ ur two months apart. (Example: If your first sam pling event is in March, the second mon itoring must occur during May, the third dur ing July, and the fourth during September). GW March – November You must monitor two times during your 12 - mon th monitoring period. Sample events must occ ur six months apart. (Example: If your first mon itoring is in March, the second monitoring mus t occur during September. If your first mon itoring is in November, the second mon itoring must occur in May). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 49

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 50 

# Sampling Locations - Overview • Microcystins • Phased sample analysis • PWSs w ill collect all required samples but not all samples may need to be analyz ed 

## • “To tal microcystins” (ADDA ELISA) at source water intake and EPTDS • Metho d 544 (specific microcystin congeners) at the EPTDS • Temp erature and pH at source water intake (concurrently) 

# • Haloa cetic Acid Groups • Stage 2 Disinfection Byproduct Rule (DBPR) locations and/or distrib ution system maximum residence time (DSMRT) 

## • Sou rce water intake [bromide and total organic carbon (TOC)] con currently 

# • Remaini ng UCMR 4 contaminants • EPTDS sampling

# Phased Sa mple - Analysi s for Microcystins

ELISA analysis of the EPTDS sample would be the first step for consecutive systems (purchase 100% of their water) 0.3 μg/L (the reporting limit for total microcystins) PWSs (SW and GWUDI) must collect all required samples for each sampling event (source water intake and EPTDS samples) but all samples may not need to be analyzed. ELISA result <0.3 μg/L ELISA result ≥0.3 μg/L Source water intake samples analyzed for total microcystins by ADDA ELISA (PWS will also take pH and temperature measurements)

Source water result would be reported to EPA. Other collected samples (for ELISA and 544) from the EPTDS would not be analyzed for that sampling event Source water result would be reported to EPA. The EPTDS sample would then be analyzed by ELISA EPTDS ELISA result <0.3 μg/L EPTDS result would be reported to EPA and the 544 sample would not be analyzed for this particular sampling event EPTDS ELISA result ≥0.3 μg/L EPTDS result would be reported to EPA and the other microcystin sample collected at the EPTDS would be analyzed using Method 544 to identify particular microcystin congeners *Method 544 (identifies six specific congeners) is not a confirmation check of the ADDA ELISA result (provides a ‘total’ of 80 -100 congeners) Sampling Location Samples Collected Source water intake ADDA ELISA, pH and temperature Entry point to the distribution system (EPTDS) ADDA ELISA, EPA Method 544 and 545

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 52 

# Sampling Locations – HAA Groups

• If subjec t to Stage 2 DBPR: • Collec t distribution system samples at the locations ident ified under that rule 

# • If no t subject to Stage 2 DBPR: • Collec t samples at a location that represents the DSMRT • DSMRT is an active point (i.e., location that currently provides wat er to customers) in the distribution system where water has be en in the system longest relative to the EPTDSU.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 53 

# Sampling Locations – HAA Groups

• UCMR 4 HAA samples and HAA5 Stage 2 DBPR compliance samples 

### can be collected at the same time • Mus t use a UCMR 4 approved laboratory and EPA Method 552.3 or 557 

### • PWSs report HAA results to EPA for three groups (HAA5, HAA6Br and HAA9) • Lab s alsoreport individual HAA ana lyte data for QC purposes 

### • Bette r understand co - occ urrence between regulated and unregulated dis infection byproducts HAAGroups d ich loroacetic aci d (DCAA) HAA5 HAA9 m ono chloroacetic aci d (MCAA) t ric hloroacetic aci d (TCAA) m ono bromoacetic aci d (MBAA) HAA6 Br d ibromoacetic aci d (DBAA) b rom ochloroacetic aci d (BCAA) b rom odichloroacetic aci d (BDCAA) c hlo rodibromoacetic aci d (CDBAA) t rib romoacetic aci d (TBAA)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 54



# Source Wat er Sampling

• Appli es to micro cystin (i.e., ADDA ELISA, pH and temperature) and HAA (i.e., bromide and TOC) monitoring • Untrea ted water entering the water treatment plant • A loc ation prior to any tre atment 

## • Sys tems subject to: • The Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR) • Use t he source water sampling site(s) under that rule 

## • Stag e 1 DBPR (remain unchanged under Stage 2 DBPR ) • Use TOC source water sampling site(s) 

## • Sys tems with two different source water sampling locations for LT2/ Stage 1 DBPR • Use samplepoint that best represents the definition of source water samplelocation(s) for UCMRU.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 55



# Rep resentative Sampling

• Large GW systems with multiple EPTDSs can 

# sample a t representative sampling locations rather than a t each EPTDS if prior approval is received • Repr esentative sampling plans approved under prior UCMRswill be recognized for UCMR 4 • These systems must submita copy of the document ation from their state or EPA that approved theirrepresentative sampling locations

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 56



# Rep resentative Sampling

• NewGW representative monitoring plans must be submitt ed for review by the state or EPA within 120 da ys from publication of the final rule • Appr oved representative locations must be loaded into the SDWARS by December 31, 2017U.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 57



# Sche dules

• Large system schedules • EPA in itially drafts schedule • Partn ered state has opportunity to review and modify • PWS h as opportunity to review and modify • Systems must NOT modify their schedules to avoid a sus pected vulnerable period 

# • Small system schedules • EPA in itially drafts schedule • Partn ered state has opportunity to review and modify

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 58



# Sampling Design

• EPA invites comment on: • M onit oring time frame (March November) • Cyan otoxin monitoring approach • Includi ng “indicator” monitoring 

## • Phased sample - analysis for microcystins • Balan ce between burden (e.g. , number of PWSs, moni toring frequency) and data representativeness

# UCMR 4 Reporting Jenn ifer Tully, ORISE

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 60



# UCMR 4 Reporting Overview

• Initial and o n - goin g reporting requirements • New/revised data elements • Timing of reportingU.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 61 

# Rep orting by All Systems § 141.35(b)

• EPA’ s electronic data reporting system (SDWARS) 

# can be accessed: • htt p://www.epa.gov/dwucmr 

# • Hard c opy documentation mailed: • UCMR Sampling Coordinator, USEPA, Technical Support Cent er, 26 West Martin Luther King Drive (MS 140), Cinc innati, OH 45268 

# • Electro nic files emailed: • UCMR_Samp ling_Coordinator@epa.gov

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 62 

# Large System Reporting § 141.35(c)

• Contactand zip code information • SDWAR S by December 31, 2017 

# • Samplin g location information • SDWAR S by December 31, 2017 • Chang es after applicability date must be submitted to (with reason ) and approved by EPA’s UCMR Sampling Coordinator 

# • Samples • PWSs m ust report all data elements specified in § 141.35(e) Table 1 (e.g., disinfectant type, treatment information and disinfectant 

## res idual) 

# • Monit oring results • Ent ered by UCMR approved laboratory to SDWARS • Rev iewed and submitted by PWSU.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 63 

# Small System Reporting § 141.35(d)

• If notifi ed that system will be subject to UCMR 4: • Cont act and zip code information • To SDWARS within 90 days of notification (ne w) 

## • Samp ling location information • To SDWARS by December 31, 2017 (ne w) 

## • Samp les • PWSs mu st report all data elements specified in § 141.35(e) T able 1 on each sample form as appropriate (e.g., disinfectant type, tre atment information and disinfectant residual) 

## • Mon itoring results • Ent ered by contracted laboratory to SDWARS • Rev iewed by EPA • Viewe d by PWS



# Rep orting Dat a Elements § 141.35(e) 1. P ublic Water System Identification (PWSID) Code 14. Sample Identification Code 2. P ublic Water System Name* 15. Contaminant 3. P ublic Water System Facility Identification Code 16. Analytical Method Code 4. P ublic Water System Facility Name* 17. Extraction Batch Identification Code 5. P ublic Water System Facility Typ e* 18. Extraction Date 6. W ater Source Type 19. Analysis Batch Identification Code 7. Sam pling Point Ide ntification Code 20. Analysis Date 8. S ampling Point Name* 21. Sample Analysis Typ e (more details ) 9. S ampling Point Type Code 22. Analytical Results — Sign 10. Disinfectant Typ e (more details ) 23. Analytical Result— Mea sured Value 11. Treatment Info rmation (more details) 24. Additional Value 12. Disinfectant Residual Type 25. Laboratory Identification Code 13. Sample Collection Date 26. Sample Event Code Blue indicates new data element Green indicates updated data element *New data elements that were used in previous UCMRs but not required per rule language U.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 64U.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 65 

# Disinfe ctant Type - Dat a Element 10

• PEM B = pe rmanganate (applied before SR s ample location) • PEM A = pe rmanganate (applied after SR sampl e location) • HPXB = hy drogen peroxide (applied befo re SR sample location) • HPXA = hy drogen peroxide (applied after SR s ample location) • CLG A = gas eous chlorine • CLO F = of

fsite generated hypochlorite (st ored as a liquid form) • CLO N = ons ite generated hypochlorite • CAG C = c hloramine (formed from gase ous chlorine) • CAO F = c hloramine (formed from offsite hypo chlorite) • CAO N = c hloramine (formed from onsite hypo chlorite) • CLD B = c hlorine dioxide (applied before SR s ample location) • CLDA = chl orine dioxide (applied after SR sampl e location) • OZO N = o zone • ULV L = ul traviolet light • OTHD = al l other types of disinf ectant/oxidant • NODU = nodisinfectant/oxidant used

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 66 

# Trea tment Information - Data Element 11

• CON = c onventional (non - softening) • SCO = s oftening conventional • RBF = ri ver bank filtration • PSD = pr e - sedi mentation • INF = i n - linefiltration • DFL = di rect filtration • PCF = prec oat fil tration • SSF = s low sand filtration • BIO = bi ological filtration • REC = rea ctor clarification (e.g., solids contact cla rification, slurry recirculation clarification, Aci flo ®) • SBC = s ludge blanket clarification (e.g., Puls ator ®, Super Puls ator ®, c ontact adsorption clarifiers, flo c - blanket clarifiers) • ADC = ad sorption clarification (contact adsorption clari fication) • UTR = unf iltered treatment • PAC = ap plication of powder activated carbon • GAC = g ranular activated carbon (not part of fil ters in CON, SCO, INF, DFL or SSF) • AIR = ai r stripping (packed towers, diffused gas contactors) • POB = pr e - oxi dation/disinfection with chlo rine (applied before SR sample loc ation) • POA = pr e - oxi dation/disinfection with chlo rine (applied after SR sample location) • MFL = m embrane filtration • IEX = i onic exchange • UVT = ul traviolet light • AOX = ad vanced oxidation (ultraviolet light with h ydrogen peroxide and/or ozone) • DAF = di ssolved air floatation • CWL = c lear well/finished water storage without aeration • CWA = c lear well/finished water storage with ae ration • ADS = ae ration in distribution system (loc alized treatment) • OTH = al l other types of treatment • NTU = notreatment usedU.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 67



# Sample Analysis Type - Data Element 21

• CF = concentration fortified; the concentration of a k nown contaminant added to a field sample rep orted with sample analysis types LFSM, LFS MD, LFB, CCC and QCS. • CCC = continuing calibration check; a calibration sta ndard containing the contaminant, the internal standard, and surrogate analyzed to ver ify the existing calibration for those contaminants. • FS = field sample; sample collected and sub mitted for analysis under this rule. • IS = i nternal standard; a standard that measures therelative response of contaminants. • LFB = l aboratory fortified blank; an aliquot of rea gent water fortified with known quantities of thecontaminants and all preservation com pounds. • LRB = l aboratory reagent blank; an aliquot of reagent water treated exactly as a field sample, including the add ition of preservatives, internal standards, and sur rogates to determine if interferences are present in thelaboratory, reagents, or other equipment. • LFS M = l aboratory fortified sample matrix; a UCMR fie ld sample with a known amount of the contaminant of interest and all preservation compounds added. • LFS MD = l aboratory fortified sample matrix duplicate; dup licate of the laboratory fortified sample matrix. • QCS = q uality control sample; a sample prepared with a s ource external to the one used for initial calibration andCCC. The QCS is used to check calibration standard integrity. • QH = q uality HAA; HAA sample collected and sub mitted for quality control purposes. • SUR = s urrogate standard; a standard that assesses met hod performance for each extraction.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 68



# Timing of Re porting Results • Large systems • Labora tory posts results to SDWARS within 120 days of sample c ollection • Sys tems review, approve and submit to state and EPA with in 60 days of laboratory’s post 

# • Small systems • EPA w ill still manage laboratory contracts for small wat er systems 

# • Labora tory posts results to SDWARS within 120 days of sample c ollection • Sys tems have the option to view data in SDWARS • EPA w ill not mail hard copy reports to systems or states

# 10 - Minute Brea k

UCMR 4 Labora tory Approval Process and MRLs Melissa Simic, USEP

AU.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 71 

# UCMR 4 Laboratory Approval Program

• Similarto the process used in UCMR 3 

# • Only UCMR 4 approved laboratories can analyze UCMR 4 sample s collected at PWSs • Appr oval is by method and by individual location • A labo ratory may apply for any number of UCMR 4 methods 

# • Labor atories need to meet: • UCMR 4approval program criteria • Requir ed equipment criteria • Labo ratory performance criteria • Dat a reporting criteria

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 72 

# UCMR 4 Laboratory Approval Manual

• Proce dures for obtaining UCMR 4 approval and procedures for revocation of a pproval • Qualityassurance (QA) and quality management requirements • Initial Dem onstration of Capability (IDC) • Minimu m reporting level (MRL) verification • Qualitycontrol (QC) requirements: • Ext raction/Analysis Batch • Initi al calibration of analytical instruments • Cont inuing calibration checks (CCC) • Sur rogate and internal standard 

### • Labor atory reagent blanks (LRB) and laboratory fortified blanks (LFB) • Qual ity control samples (QCS) • Labora tory fortified sample matrix (LFSM) 

## • Sample handling requirements • Uploa ding data to SDWARSU.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 73



# Gene ral Procedure

• Step 1: Request to Participate 

# • Step 2: Registration • Step 3: Application Package • Step 4: EPA Review of Application Package • Step 5: Proficiency Testing (PT) • Step 6: Written EPA approval

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 74 

# Step1 - Req uest to Participate

• Submit a wr itten request to EPA Laboratory Appr oval Coordinator • UCMR_Samp ling_Coordinator@epa.gov 

# • EPA provides: • Regist ration material • Cus tomized application packageU.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 75



# Step2 - Registration

• Comple te registration sheet: • List of the UCMR 4 methods that the laboratory is seeking 

## appr oval • Labo ratory information • Mailin g and shipping address • Cont act information 

# • EPA will provide a UCMR - specific laboratory ID to each partici pant • Must complete and submit the necessary registration forms wi thin 60 days of publication of the final rule

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 76



# Step3 - Applic ation Package

• Separa te application for each method • Appli cation must include: • Proo f of current drinking water laboratory certification (for select comp liance monitoring methods) • Per sonnel information • QA information • Info rmation regarding analytical equipment and sample handling pro cedures • Dat a submission for each method (e.g., IDC study, QC sample results, quan tification reports) 

## • Confir mation on reporting to SDWARS 

## • Mus t complete and submit the necessary application materials (metho d specific) within 120 days from publication of final ruleU.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 77 

# Step4 - Review of Application Package

• EPA reviews application package • If de ficiencies are identified the lab will have an opportunity to make corrective actions and submit new applic ation information • If all r equested information is present and acceptable, EPA w ill notify the laboratory that they are eligible to partic ipate in corresponding PT studies

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 78



# Step5 - Proficie ncy Testing

• EPA provides method - specif ic PT samples • Laborat ories: • Analyz e PT sample(s) for each analyte and method • If do not pass PT, may have another opportunity 

# • One suc cessful PT per method • No PT studies after monitoring beginsU.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 79 

# Step6 – Writt en EPA Approval

• After successful participation in a PT study for a 

# specific m ethod, EPA will notify the laboratory in writing • Before final rule is published, the laboratory will be grant ed a “pending approval” contingent upon: • Chan ges applied to the final rule • Resolu tion of any findings from a laboratory audit 

# • Gran ted “final approval” after promulgation of the final rule

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 80



# Maintain ing Approval

• Adher e to QA/QC measures in the methods, rule language and the U CMR 4 Laboratory Approval Manual • Pos t occurrence data and required QC data via SDWA RS within prescribed time frame • Success fully complete audits and meet all the other s tated conditionsU.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 81



# MRLs

• MRL is an estimate of the quantitation level, achie vable with a 95% confidence, by at least 75% of labor atories nationwide • Estab lished with data from several laboratories performing LCMRL studies • LCMR L – The lowest true concentration for which the future r ecovery is predicted to fall between 50% to 150% with 99 % confidence • Estima te of lowest concentration at which measurements of specified q uality can be repeatedly made • Simu ltaneous application of precision and accuracy

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 82



# MRLs

• To achieve quality across laboratories, while allowing for reasonable national laboratory capacity • MRLs are generally established as low as is reasonable; typically lower than current HRLs and health advis ories • EPA will consider raising MRLs if there is evidence that a proposed MRL is unattainable or impracticalU.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 83



# MRLs - Cyanot oxins 1 - Cont aminant 2 - CASRegistry Number 3 - Analytical Met hods 4 - Mini mum Reporting Level mic rocystin - LA 96180 - 79 - 9 EPA544 0.0 08 μg/L mic rocystin - LF 154037 - 70 - 4 EPA544 0.0 06 μg/L mic rocystin - LR 101043 - 37 - 2 EPA544 0.0 2 μg/L mic rocystin - LY 123304 - 10 - 9 EPA544 0.0 09 μg/L mic rocystin - RR 111755 - 37 - 4 EPA544 0.0 06 μg/L mic rocystin - YR 101064 - 48 - 6 EPA544 0.0 2 μg/L nod ularin 118399 - 22 - 7 EPA544 0.0 05 μg/L tot al microcystin N/A ADD A ELISA 0.3 μg/L ana toxin - a 64285 - 06 - 9 EPA545 0.0 3 μg/L cyl indrospermopsin 143545 - 90 - 8 EPA545 0.0 9 μg/L

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 84



# MRLs – Metals 1 - Cont aminant 2 - CASRegistry Number 3 - Analytical Met hods 4 - Mini mum Reporting Level germa nium 7440 - 56 - 4 EPA 200 .8, ASTM D56 73 - 10, SM 3125 0.3 μg/L man ganese 7439 - 96 - 5 EPA 200 .8, ASTM D56 73 - 10, SM 3125 0.4μg/LU.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 85 

# MRLs – Pestic ides and Pesticide Byproduct 1 - Cont aminant 2 - CASRegistry Number 3 - Analytical

Met hods 4 - Mini mum

Reporti ng Level alp ha - hex achlorocyclohexane 319 - 84 - 6 EPA525.3 0.0 1 μg/L chl orpyrifos 2921 - 88 - 2 EPA525.3 0.0 3 μg/L dim ethipin 55290 - 64 - 7 EPA525.3 0.2 μg/L etho prop 13194 - 48 - 4 EPA525.3 0.0 3 μg/L oxyf luorfen 42874 - 03 - 3 EPA525.3 0.0 5 μg/L pro fenofos 41198 - 08 - 7 EPA525.3 0.3 μg/L tebu conazole 107534 - 96 - 3 EPA525.3 0.2 μg/L tot al permethrin (cis - & t rans - ) 52645 - 53 - 1 EPA525.3 0.0 4 μg/L tri bufos 78 - 48 - 8 EPA525.3 0.0 7 μg/L

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 86



# MRLs – Haloacetic Aci ds 1 - Cont aminant 2 - CASRegistry Number 3 - Analytical Met hods 4 - Mini mum Reporti ng Level b rom ochloroacetic aci d (BCAA) 5589 - 96 - 8 EPA552.3 or EPA 557 0.3 μg/L b rom odichloroacetic aci d (BDCAA) 71133 - 14 - 7 EPA552.3 or EPA 557 0.5 μg/L c hlo rodibromoacetic aci d (CDBAA) 5278 - 95 - 5 EPA552.3 or EPA 557 0.3 μg/L t rib romoacetic aci d (TBAA) 75 - 96 - 7 EPA552.3 or EPA 557 2.0 μg/L m ono bromoacetic aci d (MBAA) 79 - 08 - 3 EPA552.3 or EPA 557 0.3 μg/L d ibromoacetic aci d (DBAA) 631 - 64 - 1 EPA552.3 or EPA 557 0.3 μg/L d ich loroacetic aci d (DCAA) 79 - 43 - 6 EPA552.3 or EPA 557 0.2 μg/L m ono chloroacetic aci d (MCAA) 79 - 11 - 8 EPA552.3 or EPA 557 2.0 μg/L t ric hloroacetic aci d (TCAA) 76 - 03 - 9 EPA552.3 or EPA 557 0.5 μg/L * Regi ster for TOC and bromideU.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 87



# MRLs – Alcohols

1 - Cont aminant 2 - CASRegistry Number 3 - Analytical Met hods 4 - Mini mum Reporting Level 1 - but anol 71 - 36 - 3 EPA541 2.0 μg/L 2 - meth oxyethanol 109 - 86 - 4 EPA541 0.4μg/L 2 - pro pen - 1 - ol 107 - 18 - 6 EPA541 0.5 μg/L

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 88 

# MRLs – Semivola tile Organics

1 - Cont aminant 2 - CASRegistry Number 3 - Analytical Met hods 4 - Mini mum Reporting Level butylated hyd roxyanisole 25013 - 16 - 5 EPA530 0.0 3 μg/L o - tol uidine 95 - 53 - 4 EPA530 0.0 07 μg/L qui noline 91 - 22 - 5 EPA530 0.0 2 μg/L

# Submitting Public Comments Bren da Parris, USEPA

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 90 

# Comment Process/Accessing Docket

• Go t o http ://www.regulations.gov • Enter Docket ID EPA - HQ- OW - 2015 - 0218 • Click Search buttonU.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 91 

# Comment Process/Accessing Docket

• The UCMR 4 docket 

# should pop up on the next screen • Click on the Commen t Now button on right hand side of the screen

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 92 

# Comment Process/Accessing Docket

• Entercomment and all requi red information on ne xt screen • Uploa d a document by clickingon the Choose files butt on • Click on the Continu e butt on at the bottom of the page to preview your c ommentU.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 93 

# Comment Process/Accessing Docket

• Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or remov ed • Do not electronically submit any information you consid er to be CBI • Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accomp anied by a written comment • Writt en comment is considered the official comment and should in clude discussion of all points you wish to make 

# • EPA public comment policy is at: http: //www.epa .gov/dockets/commenting - epa dockets



# Stat ements from Webinar Participan tsName Org anization Lynn Thorp Clean Water Action Ste ve Via AWWA Paul Monroy Bab cock Laboratories, Inc. Amand a Foss Gree nWater Lab Andre w Eaton Eurofins Eaton Analytical Char maigne Cortesio Ari zona Public Service Cyn thia Andrews -Tat e Lon g Beach Water Department Hei de Bel l Cityof O'Fallon Kasi Cla y Cityof Grand Prairie Robe rt Holmes Akron Water Supply Dave Dunaway ADE Q JudySchmidt Cityof Arvada Dani elle Bonham Cityof Vallejo Zac h Brown Cityof Sterling Theresa Lutz MDWID Jef f Martin Cityof Evanston Ste ven Praz ak Cityof Bend Utility Department Mel issa Simo ncini Conc ord Public Works DougSims Aub urn Water System John Allen BCWI D#1

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 96



# Closing Re marks

• Further information: • Bren da D. Parris: parris.br enda@epa.gov • Melissa Simic: simic.melissa@ep a.gov • Safe Drinking Water Hotline: htt p ://www.epa.gov/your - drink ing - wat er/safe drink ing - wat er - hotline • Meet ing materials were sent to all registered 

# partic ipants • If you did not receive a copy, please email UCMRwebinar@cadmusgroup.com and we will send you a copyU.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 97



# Additio nal Information

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 98



# Acronyms Abbrevi ations and Acronyms ADD A (2S , 3S, 8S, 9S, 4E, 6E) - 3 - ami no - 9 - meth oxy - 2,6 ,8 - tri methyl - 10 - phen yl - 4, 6 - deca dienoic acid DSM RT Dis tribution System Maximum Residence Time ELI SA Enzyme - lin ked Immunosorbent Assay EPTD S Ent ry Poi nt to the Distribution System GW Gro und Wat er GWR MP Gro und Water Representative Mon itoring Plan GWU DI Gro und Wat er Under the Direct Influence of Surface Water HAA5 Dib romoacetic Acid, Dichloroacetic Acid, Monobromoacetic Acid, Monochloroacetic Acid,

Tri chloroacetic Acid HAA6 Br Bro mochloroacetic Acid, Bromodichloroacetic Acid, Dibromoacetic Acid,

Dib romochloroacetic Acid, Monobromoacetic Acid, Tribromoacetic Acid HRL Healt h Reference LevelU.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 2016 99



# Acronyms Abbrevi ations and Acronyms IDC Ini tial Demonstration of Capability LCMR L Low est Concentration Minimum Reporting Level MRL Min imum Reporting Level PA Partnership Agreement PT Prof iciency Testing SDWARS Safe Drinking Water Accession and Review System SDW IS/Fed Feder al Safe Drinking Water Information System SMP Sta te Monitoring Plan SW Surface Water TOC Tot al Org anic Carbon