## U.S. Environmental Protection Agency


## Documentation of OMB Review Under Executive Order 12866 Title of Action:

Docket#: FRL#: RIN: This action was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 , titled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Whenever EPA makes publicly available a regulatory action that was reviewed under E.O. 12866, section 6(a)(3)(E) of the E.O. directs the Agency to also: (1) Make available to the public a copy of the information that was provided to OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for review under the E.O., i.e. , the text of the draft regulatory action and, if applicable, an assessment of the potential costs and benefits, as well as additional information for those actions that are determined to be economically significant under the E.O. (Information requirements are described in sections 6(a)(3)(B) and (C)). (2) Identify for the public any substantive changes between the draft submitted to OIRA and the action that was subsequently issued, using a method that is complete, clear, and simple. (3) Identify for the public those substantive changes made at the suggestion or recommendation of OIRA. 

## For this regulatory action, were substantive changes made to information reviewed under E.O. 12866? [Please check the appropriate answer.] 

## No. [In the docket, include the information identified in item (1) below.] 

## Yes. [In the docket, include the information identified in items (1) – (3) below.] 

## Accordingly, the Agency has included this form and the following information in the public docket for this regulatory action: [Please check the appropriate information.] 

## (1) A copy of the information that was provided to OIRA for review under the E.O. (2) Documentation of any substantive changes made to the draft regulatory text that was submitted to OIRA when compared with what was subsequently made publicly available. The documentation is provided on the pages following this form. Changes made at the suggestion or recommendation of OIRA, if any, are clearly identified through attribution to OIRA. EPA has used one or more of the following methods to note changes: [Select the appropriate option(s).] 

## (a) Redline-Strikeout – A copy of the draft regulatory action submitted, using redlinestrikeout to show the substantive changes that were made. (b) Hand Markup – A copy of the draft regulatory action submitted, using handwritten notes to show the substantive changes that were made. (c) Note to the file - A document that identifies the substantive changes that were made, with page and paragraph references to the draft regulatory action that was submitted. If you have any questions about this regulatory action or this documentation, please call the contact: Name: Email: Phone: Revised 05/05/2010 

### Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (UCMR 3) for Public Water Systems

EPA-OW-2009-0090 2040-AF10



### Stephanie Flaharty flaharty.stephanie@epa.gov 

### (202)564-5072*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 1 of 126 EO12866_UCMR3 Part 141 and 142_2040 AF10_ draft FRN_201 11028 TrackChanges_ 20120315 .docx ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Par ts 141 and 142

[Docket No. EPA
- HQ
- OW -2009-0090; FRL- ]

RIN 2040- AF10

Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation ( UCMR 3 ) for Public Water Systems

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final Rule

.

_______________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY: The 1996 ame ndments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) require that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency ) establish criteria for a
program to monitor unregulated contaminants and publish a list of up to 30 contaminants to be monitored every five years. This final rule meets the SDWA requirement by p ublishing the third Comment [E1]: Proposed OMB edits accepted unless otherwise noted.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 2 of 126 Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (i.e., UCMR 3), listing the unregulated contaminants to be monitored and addressing the requirements for such monitoring. This final

ru le describes analytical methods to monitor for 28 2 7 UCMR 3 chemical contaminants , total chromium, and describes the monitoring for two viruses , for a total of 30 UCMR 3 contaminants

. EPA is also requiring the monitoring of total chromium under the authority provided in the
SDWA. UCMR 3 provides EPA and other interested parties with scientifically valid data on the occurrence of these contaminants in drinking water, permitting the as sessment of the number of people potentially being exposed and the levels of that exposure. These data are one of the primary sources of occurrence and exposure information the Agency use s to develop regulatory decisions for these contaminants. In addition, as part of an Expedited Methods Update, this rule finalizes amendatory language for the a drinking water inorganic analysis table (“Inorganic chemical sampling and analytical requirements”) table in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)

. This minor editorial correction to the table moves methods from the “Other” column to the “ASTM” column, as it applies to the inorganic chemical sampling and analytical requirements. The does not affect the UCMR program is not affected by these changes

.

DATES: This final rule is effective on [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATI ON IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] . For purposes of judicial review, this rule is promulgated as of 1 p.m. eastern time on [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER ] a s provided in 40 CFR 23.7. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of [INSERT Comment [E2]: Sec

- butylbenzene and n

propylbenzene dropped from rule; hormones moved from Assessment Monitoring to Screening Survey as discussed with OMB on 3/1/12. Many edits in this document reflect these changes.

Comment [JL3]: While we recognize that you would technically do this under alternate authority, but recommend that you keep the list to 30 contaminants total, as provided in the statute and consistent wi th past UCMRs. We recommend that you drop one of the methods and associated contaminants in order to reduce burden and keep the list at or below 30. We defer to you judgment on which method is the lowest priority to the agency, but note that several stak eholders have raised technical concerns about method 539 for hormones, particularly with regard to very low level detections and the possibility of false positives. To our knowledge, you are probably not close to making a regulatory determination on hormo nes, so this might be a good candidate to defer until the next UCMR. Comment [JL4]: Please clarify which table you are referring to. Comment [E5]: We have been advised by OFR to not cite specific sections of the CFR or FR in the summary section.

Comment [E6]: Deleting specifics, consistent with the general nature of this summary section.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 3 of 126 DATE 30 DAYS AF TER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]

.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OW

2009-0090 . All documents in the docket are listed in the index at www.regulations.gov

. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business information (CBI) or other information , the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically at www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Water Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. This Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for this Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is (202) 566 -2426.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brenda D. Parris, Technical Support Center, Standards and Risk Management Division, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 26 West Martin Luther King Drive (MS 140), Cincinnati, Ohio 45268; telephone (513) 569-7961; or email at parris.brenda@epa.gov. For general in formation, contact the Safe Drinking Water Hotline. Callers within the United States may reach the Hotline at (800) 426 -4791. The Hotline is open Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays, from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Eastern time.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 4 of 126 The Safe Drinking Water Hotline may also be found on the Intern et at http://water.epa.gov/drink/contact.cfm

.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information A. Does This Action Apply to Me? Entities regulated by this action are public water systems (PWSs). All large community and non-transient non-community water systems serving more than 10,000 people are required to monitor. A community water system (CWS) means a PWS , which has at least 15 service connections used by year- round residents or regularly serves an average of at least 25 year -round residents. A n on - transient non

- community water system ( NTNCWS ) means a PWS that is not a
CWS and regularly serves at least 25 of the same people over six months per year. Only a natio nally representative sample of “ small ” community and non- transient non -community systems serving 10,000 or fewer people are required to monitor for the chemical analytes (see USEPA, 2001 for a description of the statistical approach for the nationally representative sample)

. EPA will pay for the analysis of samples collected by these small systems. Transient

non -community water systems (TNCWS ) (i.e., systems that do not regularly serve at le ast 25 of the s ame people over six months per year) are not required to monitor for the chemical analytes

. However, transient ground water systems serving 1,000 or fewer people may be selected for virus monitoring. If selected, these systems are required to permit EPA to sample and analyze for List 3 contaminants and pathogen indicators. EPA w ill pay for all sampling and analysis costs*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 5 of 126 asso ciated with virus monitoring at these small systems . Exhibit 1 summarizes UCMR 3 applicability by system type and size.

Exhibit 1 : Ap plicability of UCMR 3 to Water Utilities by System Type and Size UCMR 3 Assessment Monitoring System Type System Size 1 Serving > 10,000 Serving ≤ 10,000
CWS & NTNCWS Requires all systems to monitor for List 1 chemicals Requires 800 randomly selected systems to monitor for List 1 chemicals. EPA will pay for the analysis of samples

. TNCWS No requirements No Requirements UCMR 3 Screening Survey System Type System Size 1 Serving > 10,000 Serving ≤ 10,000

CWS & NTNCWS Requires a ll systems serving more than 100,000, and 320 randomly selected systems serving 10,001 to 100,000 to monitor for List 2 chemicals. Requires 480 randomly selected systems to monitor for List 2 chemicals. EPA will pay for the analysis of samples.
TNCWS No requirements No Requirements UCMR 3 Pre
- Screen Testing System Type System Size 1 Serving > 1,000 Serving ≤ 1,000

CWS, TNCWS & NTNCWS No requirements Requires 800 randomly selected systems to permit EPA to sample and analyze List 3 microbes. The selected systems will be served by non disinfecting ground water wells in vulnerable areas . EPA will pay for the analysis of samples. 1. Based on the retail population , as indicated by SDWIS/Fed on December 31, 2010

. Comment [JL7]: Why not the effective date of the rule? Comment [E8]: All sampling schedules must be in place before the final rule is published. This involves both EPA and the States identifying not only the PWSs but the specific sampling points also. These PWSs must also be finalized prior to the development of the ICR and the costs and burden portions of the proposed rule. UCMR 3 applicability is based on SDWIS/Fed data as of 12/31/2010.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 6 of 126 S tate s, Territories, and Tribes with primary enforcement responsibility (primacy) to administer the regulatory program for PWSs under SDWA may participate in the implementation of UCMR 3 through Partnership Agreement s (P As). These p rimacy agencies may choose to perform the required analysis of samples collected for UCMR 3; however, the PWS remains responsible for compliance with this rule

. Regulated categories and entities are identified in the following exhibit.

Category Examples o f potentially regulated entities NAICS a State, Local, & Tribal Governments States, local and Tribal governments that analyze water samples on behalf of public water systems required to conduct such analysis; States, local and Tribal governments that direc tly operate community, transient and non-transient non- community water systems required to monitor. 924110

Industry Private operators of community and non

- transient non

community water systems required to monitor. 221310 Municipalities Municipal operators of community and non

- transient non -community water systems required to monitor. 924110

a NAICS = North American Industry Classification System

This exhibit is not exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities that may be regulated by this action. This exhibit lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware may potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the exhibit could also be regulated. To determine whether your facility is regul ated by this action, you should*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 7 of 126 c arefully examine the definition of PWS in §141.2 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and applicability criteria in §141.40(a)(1) and (2) of this action. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person s listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Section

.

B. Copies of This Document and Other Related Information This document is available for download at: www.regulations.gov

. For other related information, see preceding discussion on docket.

Abbreviations and Acronyms μg/L Microgram (s) p er Liter
ASDWA A ssociation of State Drinking Water Administrators
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
AGI Acute Gastrointestinal Illness
CCL Contaminant Candidate List
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CWS Community Water System DQO Data Quality Objectives
DSMRT Distribution System Maximum Residence Time
EO Executive Order
ELISA Enzym e-linked Immunosorbent Assay*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 8 of 126 EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
EPTDS Entry Point to the Distribution System
FR Federal Register
GC/MS Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry
GWUDI Ground Water Under the Direct Influence of Surface Water
HCFC -22 Chlorodifluoromethane
HP LC /MS/MS High -Performance Liquid Chromatography/Tandem Mass Spectrometry
HRL Health Reference Level
IC/MS Ion Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry
ICR Information Collection Request
IDC I nitial Demonstration of Capability
IHS Indian Health Service
LCMRL Lowest Concentration Minimum Reporting Level
LC/MS/MS Liquid Chromatography /Tandem Mass Spectrometry
LFSM Laboratory Fortified Sample Matrix
LFSMD Laboratory Fortified Sample Matrix Duplicate
MDL Method Detection Limit
MRL Minimum Reporting Level
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NCOD National Drinking Water Contaminant Occurrence Database*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 9 of 126 ND Not Detected
NTNCWS Non

- Transient Non

- Community Water System
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act NWQL National Water Quality Laboratory
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PA Partnership A greement PFBS Perfluorobutanesulfonic Acid
PFC Perfluorinated Compounds PFHpA Perfluoroheptanoic Acid
PFHxS Perfluorohexanesulfonic Aci d
PFNA Perfluorononanoic Acid
PFOA Perfluorooctanoic Acid
PFOS P erfluoro o ctanes ulfonic Acid
PT Proficiency T esting
PWS Public Water System qPCR Q uantitative P olymerase Chain R eaction
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
SDWARS Safe Drinking Water Accession and Review System
SM Standard Methods
SRF State Revolving Fund
SBA Small Business Administration*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 10 of 126 S DWA Safe Drinking Water Act SDWIS/Fed Federal Safe Drinking Water Information System
TNCWS Transient Non

- Community Water System
TTHM Total Trihalomethanes
UCMR Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
VOC Volatile Organic Compound

TABLE OF CONTENTS:
I. General Inf ormation
A. Does This Action Apply to Me?
B. Copies of This Document and Other Related Information
II. Statutory Authority and Background
A. What is the statutory authority for UCMR?
B. How does EPA meet these statutory requirements?
III. Summary of This Rule
A. What are the major changes between the proposed and final UCMR 3 rule?
B. Which water systems must monitor
1. Applicability Based on Population Served
2. Applicability for Transient Systems C. Where are samples collected?*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 11 of 126 1. Entry point to the distribution system
2. Distribution system maximum residence time location
D. What are the UCMR 3 contaminants and associated methods?
1. List compilation
2. Hormones and related methods
3. Metals, chlorate, and related methods
4. Chromium-6 and total chromium, and related methods
5. Viruses and related methods
E. How are laboratories approved for UCMR 3 monitoring?
1. This rule
2. Summary of major comments
F. How Were Minimum Reporting Levels Determined?
1. This rule
2. Summary of major comments
G. What are the UCMR 3 reporting requirements?
1. General Reporting Requirements/SDWARS
2. Sample location and inventory information (zip codes)
3. Disinfectant Type Specifications
4. Reporting schedule
IV. State and Tribal Participation
A. Partnership agreements*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 12 of 126 1. This rule
2. Summary of major comments
B. Governors’ petition and state- wide waivers
1. This rule
2. Summary of major comments
V. Cost and Benefits of This Rule
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMR A)
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National T echnology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 13 of 126 M inority Populations and Low-Income Populations.
K. Congressional Review Act
VII. Public Involvement in Regulation Development
VIII. References

LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit 1: Applicability of UCMR 3 to Water Utilities by System Type and Size Exhibit 2 a : UCMR 3 Final Contaminant Lists Exhibit 2b: Total Chromium Monitoring Exhibit 3: Timeline of UCMR 3 Activities Exhibit 4: Changes to UCMR 3 between Proposed and Final Rule Exhibit 5a: 30 29 Unregulated UCMR 3 Analytes and Associate d Methods Exhibit 5b: Total Chromium Monitoring Exhibit 6: Observed Background Levels During MRL Determination Exhibit 7: UCMR 3 Per Respondent Burden and Cost Summary for the ICR Period (2012-2014) Exhibit 8: UCMR 3 Annual National Cost and Burden (2012-2014) Exhibit 8 9 : Number of Publicly- and Privately

- Owned Small Systems Subject to
UCMR 3 Exhibit 9 10 : EPA and Systems Costs for Implementation of UCMR 3 at Small Systems*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 14 of 126 Exhibit 1 1 10 : UCMR 3 Relative Cost Analysis for Small Publicly -Owned Systems (2012-2016) Exhibit 1 2 11 : UCMR 3 Relative Cost Analysis for Small Privately -Owned Systems (2012-2016)

II. Statutory Authority and Background A. What is the statutory authority for UCMR? Section 1445(a)(2) of SDWA, as amended in 1996, requires that once every five years, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issue a new list of no more than 30 unregulated contaminants to be monitored by public water systems (PWSs). It also requires that EPA enter the monitoring data into the Agency ’ s National Drinking Water Contaminant Occurrence Database (NCOD). EPA must ensure that only a national ly representative sample of PWSs serving 10,000 or fewer people is required to monitor. EPA must also vary the frequency and schedule for monitoring based on the number of persons served, the source of supply, and the contaminants likely to be found. Section 1445(a)(1) (A ) of SDWA, as amended in 1996, requires that every person who is subject to any SDWA requirements establish and maintain such records, make such reports, conduct such monitoring, and provide such information as the Administrator may reasonably require by regulation to assist the Administrator in establishing SDWA regulations. Pursuant to this authority, EPA is also requiring the monitoring of total chromium under this final rule.
B. How does EPA meet these statutory requirements?*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 15 of 126 This final rule fulfills EPA ’s obligati on under SDWA by identifying 30 29 unregulated contaminants for monitoring during the third UCMR, referred to as “ UCMR 3.” These contaminants include: 2 8 7 chemicals measured using up to seven analytical methods and/or four equivalent consensus organization -developed methods, and two viruses measured using one sample collection and two detection methods. In conjunction with UCMR 3 Assessment Monitoring, monitoring for total chromium is als o required . T otal chromium monitoring is required under the authority provided in Section 1445 (a)(1)(A) of SDWA. EPA has developed the contaminant list (Exhibit 2 a and 2b ) and sampling design for UCMR 3 (2012-2016) with input from both stakeholders and an EPA- State working group.

Exhibit 2 a : UCMR 3 Final Contaminant Lists List 1, Assessment Monitoring 1
17

- β

- estradiol bromochloromethane (Halon 1011) 17

- α - ethynylestradiol (ethinyl estradiol) 1,4

- dioxane estriol vanadium equilin molybdenum
estrone 1,4

- dioxane cobalt vanadium

testosterone molybdenum strontium
4

- androstene

- 3,17

- dione cobalt chromium

- 6 (hexavalent chromium) 2 1 1,2,3

- trichloropropane c hlorate 1,3

- b utadiene perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) chloromethane (methyl chloride) perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) 1,1

- dichloroethane perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA)*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 16 of 126 n - propylbenzene bromochloromethane (Halon 1011) perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS)
bromomethane (me t hyl bromide) perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) chlorodifluoromethane (HC FC

- 2 2) perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) List 2, Screening Survey 17

- β

- estradiol e striol 17

- α - ethynylestradiol (ethinyl estradiol) e quilin
estrone testosterone 4- androstene

- 3,17

- dione List 3, Pre
- Screen Testing 3 2
enteroviruses n oroviruses Exhibit 2b: Total Chromium Monitoring 3
total chromium 1. M onitoring for total chromium

– in conjunction with UCMR 3 Assessment Monitoring

– is also required. This monitoring is required under the authority provided in Section 1445 (a)(1)(A) of SDWA

. 2 1 . Chromium

- 6 will be measured as soluble chromate (ion). 3 2

. Monitoring for microbial indicators – in conjunction with UCMR 3 Pre

- Screen Testing – is also required. This monitoring includes sampling for pathogen indicators (i.e. , total coliforms, E.coli , bacteriophage, Enterococci and aerobic spores ). I t is not subject to the stipulation in Section 1445(a)(2)(B)(i) of SDWA that restricts UCMR co ntaminants to not more than 30

. List 3 monitoring, including monitoring of microbial indicators, is only required at selected small systems. EPA will collect the samples from List 3 sampling locations , and will pay for all sa mpling and analysis costs associated with virus and indicator monitoring at these small systems. 3 . Monitoring for total chromium – in conjunction with UCMR 3 Assessment Monitoring – is required under the authority provided in Section 1445(a)(1)(A) of SDWA

.

This list differs from that is primarily unchanged from that the same as was provided in the March 3, 2011, proposed rule (76 FR 11713, (USEPA, 2011a)) as follows: , with the exception that chromium

- 6 (hexavalent chromium) and total chromium ha s ve been substituted added; for sec -butylbenzene and n -propylbenzene have been deleted; and . In addition, EPA is requiring total chromium monitoring under the authority provided in Sec tion 1445 (a)(1)(A) of Comment [E9]: Clarified OMB’s comment pertaining to 141.40 (a)(4)(C) Location. You must collect PreScreen Testing.... Comment [JL10]: This is only required for small systems, right? Comment [E11]: Correct, all virus monitoring occurs at only small systems.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 17 of 126 SDWA

. In addition, the requirement for monitoring of hormones was moved from Assessment Monitoring (List 1) to Screening Survey (List 2)

.

III. Summary of This R ule Public water systems (PWS) or E PA will conduct sampling and analysis for Assessment Monitoring ( List 1 ) , Screening Survey (List 2) , an d Pre

- Screen Testing ( List 3 ) contaminants, as applicable, at each PWS subject to this rule during a 12 month period within the 2013 to 2015 timeframe. Preparations prior to 2013 include coordination of laboratory approval, selection of representative samp les of small systems, development of State Monitoring Plans, establishment of monitoring schedules, and notifi cation of participating PWSs . Exhibit 3 illustrates the major activities that will take place during implementation of UCMR 3.

Ex hibit 3 : Timeline of UCMR 3 Activities 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 After proposed rule publication: Lab approval program begins After applicability date: EPA/State partnership agreements and Assessment Monitoring List 1 Contaminants + Total Chromium All systems serving more than 10,000; 800 systems serving 10,000 or fewer Complete*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 18 of 126 State monitoring plans developed (inc . national representative sample and List 3 systems ) After final rule publication : Inform PWSs/establish monitoring plans Screening Survey List 2 Contaminants All systems serving more than 1 00,000; 320 systems serving 10,001 through 100,000; 480 systems serving 10,000 or fewer reporting and analysis of data

Pre
- Screen Testing List 3 Contaminants + Indicator Organisms 800 non-disinfecting ground water systems in

vulnerable areas serving 1,000 or fewer

EPA generally divides unregulated contaminant monitoring into three types of monitoring, or “lists.” “ Assessment Monitoring ” is the largest in scope of the three UCMR monitoring lists or tiers. Under UCMR 3 Assessment Monitoring, 2 8 0 “ List 1 ” contaminants will be monitored to assess national occurrence in drinking water ; total chromium will be monitored in conjunction with Assessment Monitoring . These are the contaminants for which analytical method te chnologies are well established. The second tier of UCMR is referred to as “ Lis t 2 ” or “Screening Survey” monitoring. List 2 contaminants are those with analytical methods tha t have generally been more recently developed and employ technologies that are not as widely used ; therefore or laboratory capacity may be insufficient to conduct the larger scale Assessment Monitoring. Unlike UCMR 1 ( 64 FR 50556 , September 17, 1999, (USEPA, 1999 b )) and UCMR 2 (72 FR 367 January 4 , 2007 ,*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 19 of 126 (USEPA, 2007) ) , UCMR 3 includes no Screening Survey monitoring. Under the U CMR 3 Screening Survey, seven “List 2” contaminants will be monitored by certain systems (see Exhibit 3)

.

“ Pre

- Screen Testing ,” the third tier of UCMR monitoring is generally designed for “ List 3” contaminants with very new or specialized analytical methods. Under UCMR 3 , a selected set of 800 systems that serv e fewer than 1,000 retail customers and that do not disinfect are required to assist EPA in sampling their system for two viruses on List 3 and the associated pathogen indicators (i.e., total coliforms, E.coli , bacteriophage, Enterococci and aerobic spores ) . This requirement includes community and non-transient, non -community water systems and transient systems. EPA will pay for the sample kit preparation, sample shipping fees, and analysis costs t o mini mize the impact of the rule on small systems (those serving 10,000 or fewer people). In addition, no small syste m will be required to monitor for both List 1 and List 3 more than one “List” of contaminants. Large systems (those serving more than 10,000 people) will pay for the cost of shipping and laboratory testing for their List 1 and , as applicable, List 2 analyse s. The data collected through the UCMR program are being stored in NCOD to facilitate analysis and review of contaminant occurrence , guide the conduct of the Contaminant Candidate
L ist ( CCL ) process and support the Administrator in making regulatory decis ions for contaminants in the interest of protecting public health, as required under SDWA Section 1412(b)(1). Results of UCMR 1 and 2 monitoring can be viewed by the public at EPA’ s UCMR*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 20 of 126 web s ite: http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/ucmr/data.cfm

.

A. What are the major changes between the proposed and final UCMR 3 rule ? EPA published “Re visions to the Unregulated Contamina nt Monitoring Regulation for Public Water Systems; Proposed Rule, ” on March 3, 2011 (76 FR 11713, (USEPA, 2011a )). EPA received input from 53 public commenters. After considering the comments , EPA added chromium -6 to the list of unregulated contaminants to be monitored ; under UCMR 3 and removed sec -butylbenzene and n -propylbenzene ; and move d monitoring of hormones from Assessment Monitoring to the Screening Survey

. EPA is also requiring PWSs to monitor for total chromium concurrent with all chromium -6 monitoring. EPA revised or clarified requirements pertaining to UCMR applicability criteria, reporting, monitoring and quality control. Exhibit 4 provides a summary of these changes and a listing of the corresponding preamble section that provides a more detailed discussion of the revisions and related public comments. Sections III.B- G summarize the different aspects of this rule and the associated major comments received in response to the proposed rule. EPA has compiled a more detailed document containing all public comments and EPA’s responses entitled: “ UCMR 3 Public
Comments and Responses,” (USEPA, 2012 b ) which can be obtained by going to http://www.regulations.gov , and searching for Docket ID N o. EPA

- HQ

- OW -2009-0090.

Exhibit 4 : Changes to UCMR 3 between Proposed and Final Rule Rule Section Description of Change Corresponding*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 21 of 126 Number Title/Description Preamble Section 141.35 (c)(1) and (d)( 1) Data elements Revise zip code reporting to include only the zip codes for all customers served, rather than those associated with each sampling point III.G.2 Sample location and inventory information ( z ip codes)

141.35(c)(6)(ii) and 14 1. 40(a)(5)(vi) Reporting schedule Change laboratory reporting time to 90 120 days , rather than 60 days ; change PWS reporting time to 60 days after laboratory posting, rather than 30 days III.G.4 Reporting schedule

141.40(a)( 2) (i )(A) and (a) (2)(ii)(A); and 141.40(a)(3) Table 1 Analytes to be monitored and related specification Add chromium

- 6; remove requirement to monitor for sec butylbenzene and n - propylbenzene ; require total chromium monitoring un der SDWA Section 1445 (a)(1)(A) ; move hormone monitoring to Screening Survey III.D.4 Chromium

- 6 and t otal c hromium, and related methods III.D.1 List compilation III.D.2 Hormones and related methods
141.35(c)(2) Sample location and inventory information Large systems must provide sample location and inventory information to EPA by October 1, 2012 III.G.4 Reporting s c hedule
141.40(a)(3) Table 1, f oot note c and 141.40 (a)(4)(i)(C) Distribution system maximum residence time (DSMRT) sample location Revise definition of DSMRT sample required for specific List 1 contaminants III.C Where are samples collected? III.D.3 Metals, chlorate, and related methods 141.35(c)(5)(i) and 14 1. 40 (a)(4)(i) General rescheduling notification Large systems may independently c h ange List 1 or List 2 monitoring schedule prior to by October 1, 2012 III.G.4 Reporting schedule

141.35(c)(3) G r ound water representative sampling locations Large systems may submit r ep resentative sampling plan proposals or changes to existing plans by June August 1, 2012 III.C Where are samples collected? III.G.4 R eporting s chedule 141.40(a)(3) Table 1 foot note c Representative intake Systems that purchase water from the same wholesaler may sample from a representative intake III.C Where are s a mples collected?

B. Which water systems must monitor 1. Applicability Based on Population Served
a. This rule This rule requ ires that Assessment Monitoring (for List 1 contaminants) be conducted by all large community and non-transient, non-community water systems serving more than 10,000*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 22 of 126 people, and a nationally representative sample of 800 small water systems serving 10,000 or fewer people ; and that the Screening Survey (for List 2 contaminants) be conducted by all large community and non-transient, non-community water systems serving more than 100,000 people, a nationally representative sample of 320 large systems serving 10,001 to 100,000 people , and a nationally representative sample of 480 small water systems serving 10,000 or fewer people (as indicated by Federal Safe Drinking Water Information System ( SDWI S/Fed ) on December 31,
2010 ). Transient non

- community water systems are excluded from Assessment Monitoring and the Screening Survey

. In contrast to implementation of UCMR 1 and 2 monitoring , those systems that purchase all of their finished water fr om another system are not excluded from the requirements of UCMR 3. All systems serving more than 10,000 retail customers must monitor.
b. Summary of major comments EPA received six (6) comments concerning UCMR monitoring based on retail population served. The commenters all agreed that applicability should be based on retail population, although some wanted to exclude those who purchase their water from that applicability. In UCMR 1 and 2, systems that purchased 100% of their water were excluded from monitoring, making estimates of exposure more difficult because many of these purchasing systems represented high -population areas. For UCMR 3, systems that purchase 100% of their water and serve greater than 10,000 people are required to monitor subject to this rule

. Wholesa lers that have a retail population of 10,000 or below are only required to monitor if they are selected as part of the nationally representative sample of small systems for any list of UCMR contaminants. This should greatly improve exposure estimates for UCMR 3 since exposure estimates will be Comment [JL12]: Why this date? Comment [E13]: As indicated above, applicability must be determined in advan ce of the rules proposal. This is the latest date that allows EPA to complete development of the monitoring schedule. Comment [JL14]: Why? Comment [E15]: This is addressed further in paragraph “b” below. The population definitions used for the previous UCMRs created an inconsistency for PWSs purchasing their water. If a PWS purchased all of their water, they were not required to monitor at all, and systems that had no retail connections did have to monitor . If a PWS purchased some of their water, they were required to monitor from th eir own sources as well as their purchased source. The new definition eliminate s this inconsistency. It also eliminates the requirements for systems with no retail connections to monitor. The new definition supports a better assessment of exposure. Comment [JL16]: Not su re I understand this as long as you have estimates of retail customers served. Don’t you also know where the purchasing systems are located? How many extra systems does this wind up drawing in? Comment [E17]: Determining the number of retail customers is very complica ted. Most States do not require systems to provide us with information about whether or not they purchase all or some of their water nor do they have to report which systems sell water. This make the determination of the number of people drinking water fr om a particular monitoring point extremely difficult unless we make this change. Requiring all system serving greater than 10,000 customers to monitor eliminates this problem. Since the primary purpose of the UCMR program is to provide data on the number o f people exposed to a particular contaminant, it is essential that EPA know the retail population of each system that monitored.
We e stimate that this will mean that 1250 additional systems will need to monitor. JL: Why couldn’t you accomplish the sa me result (at much lower cost to the systems) but simply requiring them to tell you which system(s) they purchase water from and how many customers are served by water from each. You could then easily plug in the monitoring results from the source system for each system they serve. JL: Is 1250 a net increase? How many wholesale only systems will not have to monitor under your proposed approach? EPA: The issue is more than simply the accuracy of calculating served population, but is also relative to the representativeness of the monitoring data associated with the population served. The objective

...*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 23 of 126 based on the monitoring data collecte d from where the water is consumed rather than where it is sold. Between the wholesaler and the purchasing system, contaminant levels may increase (e.g. DBPs or metals) or decrease (e.g., though blending various sources or degradation/chemical reactions.)
Some c ommenters also expressed concern that this applicability change could add an estimated 1,250 systems to the list of those that need to monitor and suggested that this would represent a substantial increase in burden to the drinking water industry. To help mitigate the burden, EPA is allowing tho se systems that purchase water with multiple connections from the same wholesaler to select a representative connection for sampling . See Section III.C.1.a for further discussion

. In addition, EPA notes that approximately 450 wholesale systems will no longer be subject to monitoring; the net increase is approximately 800 systems.
2. Applicability for Transient System s a. This rule Under UCMR 1 and 2, transient non-community water syst em s were specifically exempted from monitoring. UCMR 3 now requires participation by transient systems that are selected for Pre -Screen Testing for List 3 contaminants. Under UCMR 3, EPA is conducting PreScreen Testing for enterovirus and norovirus, as we ll as related pathogen indicators, at selected undisinfected ground water systems that serve 1,000 or fewer customers. EPA is including transient systems among the candidate systems – and focusing on viruses at those systems – since viruses are acute patho gens and exposure through a one- time ingestion (e.g. , at a transient system) is of potential health concern

. Comment [JL18]: What about multiple systems serve d by the same wholesaler? Not clear how this allowance addresses the issue of 1250 additional systems being required to monitor. Comment [E19]: As d escribed above, EPA believes that it is important to include these systems to support an accurate exposure assessment. We do not believe that it is practical to require monitoring by only a subset of multiple systems served by a common wholesaler.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 24 of 126 Under 141.40(a)(1) and 141.40(a)(2)(ii)(C), if any system (including transient systems) is notified by EPA or its S tate that it has been selected f or Pre

- Screen Testing , the system must permit EPA (at EPA ’ s expense) to sample and analyze for List 3 contaminants and pathogen indicators (i.e., total coliform s, E. coli , bacteriophage, Enterococci and aerobic spores).
b. Summary of major comments EPA received two comments on including transient non -community systems for List 3 monitoring. One fully supported thei r inclusion , and the other expressed concern that EPA would not be able to adequately fund the collection and processing of these samples. EPA is confident that it has budgeted sufficient funds to support these activities. As the second commenter noted, transient systems represent a substantial number of the systems se rving less than 1,000
customers; therefore, the sampling of these potentia lly vulnerable systems for these acute pathogens is considered important.

C. Where are samples collected? 1. Entry point to the distribution system a. This rule As was the case under UCMR 2, UCMR 3 samples will be collected at entry points to the distribution s ystem (EPTDSs) . PWSs may perform sampling at representative sampling locations in two cases:

**•** Demonstrating Representative Ground Water Sampling Locations : Under this rule, large systems that use ground water sources and have multiple EPTDSs can, with prior*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 25 of 126 approval, conduct monitoring at representative sampling locations rather than at each EPTDS. To monitor at representative EPTDSs, large systems must meet the criteria specified in §141.35(c)(3) and receive approval from EPA or the State. Changes to the

ru le language clarify that when identifying a representative well, the well must be representative of the highest producing (based on annual volume) and most consistently active wells. In addition, the representative well must be in use at the scheduled samp ling time. A n alternative location must be sampled if the representative EPTDS is not available at the time of scheduled sampling

. This rule establishes a deadline of
June August 1, 2012 for submission of new proposals or updates to existing plans. See Section III.G.4 for further discussion.

**•** Representative Intakes from Wholesaler : As specified in §141.40(a )(3) Table 1, footnote

c, s ystems that purchase water with multiple connections from the same wholesaler may select one representative connection from that wholesaler for UCMR sampling

. If a PWS choose s to select a representative intake, each representative intake must receive water from the same source. Additionally, if a PWS chooses to select a representative intake, it
must choose a sampling location that represents the highest volume EPTDS connection and is in use at the time of schedule sampling. If the connection initially selected as the representative EPTDS is not available at the time of scheduled sampling, an alternate representative connection must be sampled.
b. Summary of major comments Five commenters expressed support for EPA ’ s proposal regarding representative Comment [JL20]: Given where we are, can this be pushed back a bit? Comment [E21]: Moved to August 1.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 26 of 126 sampling points, and representative intakes for PWSs with multiple connections from the same wholesaler; commenters cit ed cost savings as a benefit of this approach

. One commenter also suggested that EPA ’ s approach to representative sampling locations should provide additional flexibility in cases where multiple water systems are receivin g water from the same wholesale provider . EPA acknowledges that there are many unique situations with the purchase and sale of drinking water at the wholesale level. In t his final rule, EPA has provided clarifying language in §141.40(a)(3) Table 1, f ootnote c, specifying that a PWS may select a representative intake from a given wholesaler . EPA is available to advise PWSs regarding choos ing the most appropriate sampling site, based on their purchasing situation

. However, EPA i s requiring al l systems that purchase 100% of their water to monitor , for the reasons described in III.B.1

. EPA does not believe it would be practical to require only a subset of systems purchasing water from the same wholesale system to monitor because... Based on the experience of UCMR 1 and UCMR 2, EPA believes it is more appropriate to measure at each purchasing system to more accurately assess exposure. This approach relies on each purchasing system to monitor, thus ensuring the monitoring results reflect any potent ial water quality changes between the wholesaler and each purchasing system.
2. Distribution system maximum residence time location a. This rule This rule requires systems that participat e in A ssessment Monitoring also sample for total chromium, chromium- 6, c obalt, molybdenum, strontium, vanadium, and chlorate both at EPTDSs and in the distribution system

. This rule requires systems to collect the samples for Comment [JL22]: Sounds like you are not allowing what the commenter req uested. I would like to discuss this issue with you, but whatever you decide needs to be clear. Comment [E23]: Clarified. Comment [JL24]: As noted above, I would like to discuss this general issue further, but if you do stick with this approach, please fill in the reason why you don’t believe this would be practical. Note that my suggested approach (which is what you did for UCMR 1 and 2) is a variation on this suggestion, in which the wholesale system itself does the monitoring for all of the retail systems it serves.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 27 of 126 th ese analytes at their distribution system maximum residence time (DSMRT) location(s), (§§141.40(a)(3) Table 1, footnote c and 141.40(a)(4)(i)(C)). For clarity, EPA deleted the UCMR reference to the DSMRT specifications under the Stage 1 disinfection byproducts rule at §141.132(b)(1)(i). EPA now defines DSMRT under UCMR as an active point ( i.e., a locatio n that currently provides water to customers) in the distribution system where the water has been in the system the longest relative to the EPTDS . S ystem s that are subject to the Stage 2 Disinfection By- Products Rule should use their total trihalomethanes (( TTHM ) highest concentration sampling site(s) as their DSMRT sampling site(s) (USEPA, 2003).
b. Summary of major comments As described in greater detail in Section III.D.3., “m eta ls , chlorate, and related methods,” several commenters suggested that EPA had provided insufficient rational e for requiring DSMRT sampling for cobalt, molybdenum, strontium, vanadium, and chlorate. As elements that may occur in water both naturally, or through industrial activities, cobalt, molybdenum, strontium, and vanadium are expected to be commonly

- detected in drinking water. EPA believes these metals may be incorporated into pipe deposits and subsequent erosion and/or dissolution may result in water

- borne concentrations that differ between the DSMRT and the EPTDS. Regarding chlorate, the use of disinfectants , including use of h ypochlorite, chloramines , chlorine dioxide, and ozone can result in chlorate formation. The presence of residual disinfectant in the distribution system and chlorine boosters within the distribution system may result in increases in chlorate concentrations at the DSMRT relative to the EPTDS.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 28 of 126 D. What ar e the UCMR 3 contaminants and associated methods? 1. List compilation
a. This rule EPA is maintaining the list of unregulated contaminants and methods proposed for monitoring with the exception of substitut ing adding chromium-6 , for and removing sec butylbenzene and n - propylb enzene ( see Exhibit 5 a) . EPA is also requiring PWSs to monitor for total chromium concurrent ly with all chromium

- 6 monitoring ( Exhibit 5b). T he additional data generated by side- by

- side mea surements of chromium

- 6 and total chromium will provide valuable information on relative occurrence and the utility of monitoring for total chromium as a surrogate for chromium -6.

Exhibit 5a: 30 UCMR 29 Unregulated Analytes and Associated Methods 7 Hormones using EPA Method 539 (LC/MS/MS) 1 : 17

- β

- estradiol estrone 17

- α - ethynylestradiol (ethinyl estradiol) testosterone estriol (16

- α - hydroxy

- 17

- β

- estradiol) 4

- androstene

- 3,17

- dione equilin Assessment Monitoring
7 8 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) using EPA Method 524.3 (GC/MS) 2 1 : 1,2,3

- trichloropropane bromomethane (methyl bromide) 1,3

- butadiene n - propylbenzene bromochloromethane (Halon 1011) chloromethane (methyl chloride) chlorodifluoromethane (HCFC

- 22) 1,1

- dichloroethane br o mochloromethane (Halon 1011) Synthetic Organic Compound using EPA Method 522 (GC/MS) 3 2 : 1,4

- dioxane Comment [E25]: EPA corre cted method abbreviations in Exhibit 5a and 5b.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 29 of 126 4 Metals using EPA Method 200.8 ( IC IC P /MS) 3 4 or alternate SM 4 5 or ASTM Methods 5 6 :
c obalt s trontium

m ol ybdenum v a nadium Oxyhalide Anion using EPA Method 300.1 (IC/Conductivity) 7 6 or alternate SM 8 7 or ASTM Methods 9 8 :
c hlorate 6 Perfluorinated Chemicals using EPA Method 537 (LC/MS/MS) 10 9 : perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS) perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) pe r fluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) pe r fluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) Chromium
- 6 u s ing EPA Method 218.7 (IC/ Conductivity Conductivity UV
- VIS ) 1 1 0 : chromium -6 Screening Survey 7 Hormones using EPA Method 539 (LC/MS/MS) 1 1 : 17

- β

- estradiol e strone 17

- α - ethynylestradiol (ethinyl estradiol) t estosterone estriol (16

- α - hydroxy

- 17

- β

- estradiol) 4- androstene

- 3,17

- dione

e quilin Pre
- Screen Testing 2 Viruses (see Section III.D.5 for methods discussion): 12 enterovirus norovirus Exhibit 5b: Total Chromium Monitoring Total Chromium using EPA Method 200.8 ( IC IC P /MS) 4 or alternate SM 5 or ASTM Methods 6 : total chromium 1. EPA Method 539 (LC/MS/MS) (USEPA, 2010 e ) 2 1 . EPA Method 524.3 (GC/MS) (USEPA, 2009a) 3 2 . EPA Method 522 (GC/MS) (USEPA, 2008) 4 3 . EPA Method 200.8 (ICP/MS) (USEPA, 1994) 5 4 . SM 3125 (SM, 21 st Ed., 2005 ) 6 5 . ASTM D5673

- 10 (ASTM, 2010) 7 6 . EPA Method 300.1 (IC/Conductivity) (USEPA, 1997) 8 7 . SM 4110D (SM, 21 st Ed., 2005) 9 8 . ASTM D6581

- 08 (ASTM, 2008) 10 9 . EPA Method 537 (LC/MS/MS) (USEPA, 2009b) 1 0. 1 EPA Method 218.7 (IC/ Conductivity Conductivity UV

VIS ) (USEPA, 2011 b) 11

. EPA Method 539 (LC/MS/MS) (USEPA, 2010 e) 12. Monitoring also includes sampling for pathogen indicators (i.e., total coliforms, E.coli , bacteriophage, Enterococci and aerobic spores ) . EPA will pay for all sampling and analy sis costs associated with monitoring at these small systems.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 30 of 126 b. S ummary of major comments C ommenters who expressed an opinion about the proposed UCMR 3 analytes were generally supportive . S everal commenters suggested that cyanobacterial toxins be added to the list of analytes. EPA agrees that cyanobacterial toxins are of significant interest for future drinking water monitoring. However, EPA currently do es not have an available drinking water method for analysis of cyanobacterial toxins. W hile enzyme -linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) and high -performance liquid chromatography with UV detect ion (HPLC/UV) methods have been published (Howard and Boyer, 2007), they do not provide the level of specificity needed for UCMR monitoring. The high -performance liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC/MS/MS) methods for cyanobacterial toxins that have been published (Oehrle et al., 201 0), do not provide suitable accuracy and precision. EPA has conducted and will continue to conduct methods development research for cyanobacterial toxins both in

- house and in cooperation with other laboratories.

2. Hormones and related methods
a. This rule EPA is finalizing revising the requirement for monitoring of the hormones as proposed : ( 17- β

- estradiol; 17- α - ethynylestradiol; estriol; equilin; estrone; testosterone; and, 4

- androstene

3,17-dione ) , by moving the monitoring from Assessment Monitoring to the Screening Survey

. b. Summary of major comments T wo hree major issues concerning the hormones were raised by commenters. The first*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 31 of 126 wa s a concern that other than 17- α
- ethynylestradiol , the hormones all occur naturally. Based on the low minimum reporting levels (MRLs) specified in this rule , these c ommenters were concerned that there may be issues with false positives due to background levels of these compounds from samplers. The ranges of blank results observed during the determination of MRLs are contained in Exhibit 6. In all cases the laboratories easily met the requirement that the concentration of the analytes observed in the blank must be less than one-third of the MRL. In the “ worst case ” the observed blank level equaled one -eighth the MRL. EPA is requiring the collection of field blank samples for UCMR 3 and , to minimize the potential issue of field blank and sample contamination, will provide instructions to both the samplers and t he laboratory personnel to

wear nitrile gloves when collecting or handling samples for the hormones. These details are specified in EPA ’ s technical manual titled: “UCMR 3 Laboratory Approval Requirements and Information Document ” (USEPA, 2012d).

Exhi bit 6: Observed Background Levels During MRL Determination Analyte UCMR MRL (μg/L) Laboratory 1 (μg/L) Laboratory 2 (μg/L) Laboratory 3 (μg/L) 17

- β

- estradiol 0.0004 ND

– 0.00006 ND ND

– 0.00005 17

- α
- ethynylestradiol 0.0009 ND

– 0.00007 ND

– 0.00008 ND

– 0.0002 e striol 0.0008 ND

– 0.00007 ND ND

– 0.00006 e quilin 0.004 ND – 0.00002 ND ND – 0.0005 e strone 0.002 ND

– 0.0001 0.00001

– 0.00003 0.02

– 0.0002 t estosterone 0.0001 ND ND ND

– 0.00001 4

- androstene

- 3,17

- dione 0.0003 ND ND ND

– 0.000008 ND = Not Detected

EPA also stipulated in the rule that it will evaluate the situation after six months of*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 32 of 126 moni toring. If at that time, the data indicate that excessive resampling is occurring, EPA will establish alternative MRLs and will notify all affected PWSs and laboratories. The second issue concerned whether all of the proposed hormones should be monitored (versus a subset of them). There was no consensus among the commenters as to what the “subset” should be. Some commenters suggested that monitoring be li mited to the five (5) proposed hormones that are also listed on the final CCL 3 ( 17- β

- estradiol, 17

- α - ethynylestradiol, estriol, equilin and estrone). EPA believes that monitoring for testosterone and 4- androstene

3,17-dione is also justified. A number of articles have been published that show the occurrence of testosterone and 4- androstene -3,17-dione in surface waters:

**•** National Surface Water Reconnaissance (1999 – 2000): detects of testosterone in 2 (2.8%) of 70 samples at a median concentration of 0.116 μg/L and a maximum concentration of 0.214 μg/L (Kolpin et al., 2002).

**•** California, Rivers, Irrigation Canals, and Tile Drains (2003 – 2005): detects of
testosterone in 2 (18%) of 11 river samples at a maximum concentration of 0.0006 μg/L; detects in 4 (27%) of 15 irrigation canal samples at a maximum concentration of 0.0019 μg/L; detects in 2 (33%) of 6 tile drain samples at a maximum concentration of <0.0003 μg/L (Kolodziej et al., 2004).

**•** California Surface Waters (2005 – 2006): detects of 4-androstene-3,17-dione in 16 (18%) of 89 grazing rangeland surface water samples at a maximum concentration of 0.044 μg/L (Kolodziej and Sedlak, 2007).*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 33 of 126 In addition, testosterone and 4- androstene -3,17-dione have been shown to be relatively resistant to oxidation ( Mash et al ., 2010). The third issue concerned the issue of potential for insufficient laboratory capacity for the monitoring of hormones. Since EPA has moved the hormone monitoring requirement from
Assessment Monitoring (List 1) to Screening Survey (List 2), t his will substantially reduce the number of PWSs being required to monitor for hormones and mitigate any concerns regarding laboratory capacity.

3. Metals , chlorate, and related methods a. This rule This rule requires that samples for the metals – chromium -6, total chromium, cobalt, molybdenum, strontium, and vanadium – as well as chlorate, be collected at one distribution system sampling point per treatment plant (i.e., at the DSMRT) in addition to sampling at the
EP T DS

. DSMRT samples must be coll ected at a location that represents the maximum residence time in the distribution system (§§141.40(a)(3) Table 1, footnote c and 141.40(a)(4)(i)(C)). (As noted in Section III.C.2.a of this preamble, EPA clarified the DSMRT specifications and deleted the direct DSMRT reference under the Stage 1 disinfection byproducts rule at §141.132(b)(1)(i).) EPA is requiring that chlorate samples be collected at both the EPTDS and DSMRT loca tions to permit the Agency to evaluate if chlorate occurs as an oxyhalide disinfection by

product

. b. Summary of major comments Comment [E26]: Health effects information is still being developed for these chemicals. There is not a clear reference point against which to compare the data. Comment [JL27]: Ho w do these compare to levels that might be of health conc ern?*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 34 of 126 Eight commenters suggested that further justification was needed to support monitoring cobalt, molybdenum, strontium, and vanadium at the DSMRT. Three commenters also made similar comments r egarding chlorate. Research indicates that vanadium can become incorporated in the corrosion products in iron pipes used for drinking water distribution. As a result, vanadium may be released via dissolution and/or erosion of the mineral deposits that form inside many iron distribution pipes. Gerke et al . (2010) cite research that indicates that relatively minor scouring of these deposits can result in water concentrations of vanadium in excess of 15 μg/L . Similar findings were published by the Water Res earch Foundation (Friedman et al ., 2009). The authors reported vanadium in scaling from several different distribution systems. As a reference point, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry ( ATSDR ) has established an Interim Minimal Risk Level of 0.003 mg/kg/day; a 70 K k g adult drinking two liters of water per day would exceed the RfD through water consumption alone if the concentration in the water was greater than this corresponds to an estimated health limit of 21 μ g/L (ATSDR, 2009)

. Molybdenum has been identified as being among the heavy metals that can be mobilized from reservoir sediments containing iron and aluminum oxides and hydroxides. Fluctuations in pH of approximately 0.2 pH units were sufficient to considerably affect the release of previously absorbed molybdenum (Friedman et al. , 2009). Although such findings for cobalt and strontium are not available in the scientific litera ture, these two elements commonly occur in drinking water. As a result, EPA believes that incorporation of cobalt and/or strontium into pipe deposits within a distribution system could result in mobilization of these metals into drinking water within the distribution system via Comment [JL28]: Is this a level of health concern?

Comment [E29]: Info added to address comment. JL: This is very helpful info, but I would word it slightly differently. I assume this is what you mean by “estimated health limit.” If not, correct. EPA: This is acceptable.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 35 of 126 dissolution and/or erosion. Strontium has been found in greatest amounts in calcium-rich minerals and sediments due to similarities in atomic radii (Fairbridge, 1972). In addition, Friedman et al . (2009) report calcium to be the fourth most concentrated element found in pipe deposit samples. Thus, erosion and/or dissolution of pipe deposits within the distribution system may affect human exposure levels for cobalt, molybdenum, strontium, and vanadium. The presence of residual disinfectant in the distribution system may result in increases in chlorate concentrations at the DS MRT relative to the EPTDS. The following studies on chlorate formation have linked its presence in treated drinking water to the use of several disinfection
processes:

**•** the generation of chlorine dioxide from chlorite and free chlorine (Gordon et al., 1990; Bolyard et al., 1993; Gallagher et al., 1994);

**•** the generation of chlorine dioxide from chlorite and hypochlorite (Gallagher et al ., 1994);

**•** chlorine dioxide oxidation by residual free chlorine (Gordon and Tachiyashiki, 1991; Bolyard et al., 1993);

**•** transition metal -catalyzed free chlorine decomposition during disinfection (Gordon et al., 1995);

**•** base-catalyzed disproportionation of chl orine dioxide (USEPA, 1999a ; Gallagher et al., 1994);

**•** photodecomposition of chlorine dioxide ( Rice and Gomez -Taylor, 1986; Bolyard et al., 1993; Gallagher et al., 1994; Bergmann and Koparal, 2005);*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 36 of 126 **•** u se of chlorate

- contaminated hypochlorite solutions – chlorate can come from either the impurity of the original stock solution or decomposition during storage (Bolyard et al., 1992; Bolyard et al., 1993; Gordon et al., 1993; Gordon et al., 1995; Gordon et al., 1997; USEPA, 1999a; WHO, 2005; Snyder et al., 2009 ; Stanford et al., 2011 );

**•** use of ozone with residual chlorine (Siddiqui, 1996; von Gunten, 2003); and

**•** use of electrochemical disinfection processes (Czarnetzki and Janssen, 1992; Bergmann and Koparal, 2005).

4. Chromium -6 and total chromium, and related methods
a. This rule While EPA did not include chromium-6 in the proposed list of chemicals for UCMR 3 monitoring, EPA did request comment on whether the Agency shou ld include it in the final rule due to the concerns about its potential occurrence in public water supplies. EPA also request ed comments on whether total chromium should be measured concurrent with chromium-6.
Commenters strongly supported requiring monitoring for both chromium-6 and total chromium.
E PA agrees with these commenters a nd has subs tituted added chromium

- 6 to the list of unregulated contaminants to be monitored , and removed sec - butylbenzene and n - propylbenzene from that list

. EPA is also requiring PWSs to monitor for total chromium concurrent with all chromium -6 monitoring. chromium

- 6 for sec - butylbenzene in UCMR 3

. EPA also completed the development and v alidation of a revised analytical method for the determination of chromium -6 in drinking water, EPA Method 218.7: Determination of Dissolved Hexavalent Chromium in*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 37 of 126 Dr inking Water by Ion Chromatography . This revised method has been extensively studied both within EPA and ion chromatography manufacturers ’ laboratories as well as through external laborator y validation ( USEPA, 2011b). EPA is usin g t he authority provided in SDWA Section 1445(a)(1)(A) to require monitoring for total chromium in conjunction with the UCMR 3 monitoring of chromium-6. EPA has removed sec -butylbenzene and n -propylbenzene from that list, and removed sec butylbenzene and n -propylbenzene from the UCMR3 ass essment monitoring list. b. Summary of major comments EPA received 30 com ments regarding the inclusion of chromium-6 in UCMR 3. Twentyeight of the 30 commenters supported inclusion. The other two suggested that a health risk from drinking water exposure h ad not be en conclusively established, that regional levels of total chromium in drinking water are very low, and that speciation would not be beneficial. The Agency believes that the ongoing studies of chromium

- 6 toxicity warrant UCMR monitoring at this ti me. EPA believes that collecting national occurrence data will provide beneficial information to the Agency regarding how best to protect human health. EPA’s second Six- Year Review of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations s (USEPA, 2010d ) indicated that the levels of total chromium warrant further investigation of chromium-6 occurrence . Chromium can enter the environment from both natural and industrial sources; thus the distribution of both total chromium and chromium-6 may vary based on regional geology and regional industrial activity. Part of the goal of UCMR is to assess the national distribution of the contaminants selected.
Commenters who s upported the inclusion of chromium-6 cited two primary reasons for*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 38 of 126 its inclusion in UCMR 3:

**•** ge nerating national occurrence data in UCMR 3 will avoid potential delays in any possible regulatory action;

**•** monitoring for both total chromium and chromium-6 may allow for determining a relationship between the two species, allowing for possible use of total chromium monitoring, which is less costly and has better holding time requirements, as a surrogate for chromium

- 6 monitoring. While generally supporting chromium-6 monitoring in UCMR 3, some commenters expressed concern about the current analytical met hod. The concerns included procedural issues (e.g., field filtration, preservation and holding time compliance), interferences concerns (e.g., sensitivity and species interconv ersion prior to sample analysis ), the need for ro und- robin testing of the method laboratory capacity , and the need to determine a lowest concentration minimum reporting level (LCMRL) and MRL for chromium -6. Extensive research by EPA, with support from instrument manufacturers and commercial laboratories, addressed the issues of interf erences, sensitivity and analyte preservation. EPA Method 218.7 has undergone peer review , and multi- laboratory LCMRL and MRL determination s have been completed ( USEPA, 2011b; USEPA, 2006). Because UCMR is limited by statu te to 30 unregulated contaminants, commenters offered a variety of suggestions for which analyte to remove t o accom modate chromium -6. Suggestions included dropping one of the metals, hormones, PFCs, or VOCs. Other suggestions included*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 39 of 126 removing “ the contaminant with the least chance of being detected during monitoring.” EPA selected sec -butylbenzene and n -propylbenzene , a non - carcinogenic VOC s , for removal after considering data submitted by states that indicated a very low and declining occurrence rate s . EPA also considered the fact that the currently available health reference level s , 10.3 μg/L and
5.83 μg /L , respectively , is are well above the reported levels of occurrence in these data (USEPA, 2012c).

5. V iruses and r elated me thods a. This rule EPA is fina lizing the requirement for monitoring of the viruses as proposed

. This rule requires monitor ing for enter ovirus and norovirus in UCMR 3 via Pre

- Screen Testing of selected undisinfected ground water systems located in karst or fractured bedrock. The monitoring will include 800 PWSs serving 1,000 or fewer customers, including CWSs, and non - transient and transient non

- community water system s. Monitoring will also include sampling for pathogen indicators (i.e., total coliforms, E.coli , bacteriophage, Enterococci and aerobic spores ). This monitoring will obtain information concerning the occurrence of enterovirus and norovirus for further evaluation, and provide EPA with a better understanding of the co

- occurrenc e of pathogen indicators and viruses. Enterovirus es will be monitored using one method that has two detection assays. The first is a cell culture assay also used in the I nformation C ollection Rule survey conducted by EPA (61 FR 24353, May 14, 1996 (USEPA, 1996)), with one change; the Virosorb 1- MDS filter will be*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 40 of 126 replaced by the NanoCeram ® filter, which will significantly reduce sampling cost . The
NanoCeram ® filter has proven to be as effective as Virosorb 1- MDS filter for the recovery of enteroviruses ( Karim et al., 2009) and norovirus es (Gibbons et al., 2010). The second assay is quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) based , and detects the viral nucleic acid. Norovirus es will only be monitored using qPCR, as there is no cell culture method avail able. Both norovirus and enterovirus qPCR will be performed per the protocol in Lambertini et al. (2008). The qPCR primers and probe for genogroup I n orovirus will be as referenced in Jothikumar et al. (2005), while genogroup II Norovirus primers and prob e will be as referenced in Ando et al. (1995). Primers and probe referenced in De Leon et al. (1990) and Monpoeho et al. (2000) will be used for enterovirus qPCR.
b. Summary of major comments Several commenters expressed concern about us ing Method 1615 for monitoring viruses because it has not undergone multi- laboratory validation. EPA notes , however, that i ndividual elements of the method have been used by many researchers worl dwide, and the culture assay is, with the exception of a new filter, identical to the Information Collection Rule validated method (FR 24353, May 14, 1996 (USEPA, 1996)). The complete method is published and has undergone thorough peer review as per protocols established by EPA’s National Exposure Research Laboratory and consistent with “The Handbook for Preparing ORD R eports ” (USEPA, 1995). The method has undergone validation at EPA’ s laboratory , has built in quality controls for PCR inhibition, and has positive and negative controls to identify false negative and positive
assays . R esults from the analysis of initial and ongoing positive and negative proficiency testing*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 41 of 126 (PT) samples will ensure the ability of analysts to perform the method

. Several comment er s question ed EPA ’ s use of Borchardt ’ s (2008) data as the basis for including viruses in UCMR 3 , since that work has not been published or undergone peer review. In his study, Borchardt sampled wells from 14 communities in Wisconsin for the presence of enteroviruses and noroviruses. The initial ente ric virus RT

- qPCR assay results ar e published in a peer reviewed journal ( Hunt et. al, 2010 ). Borchardt’ s work showed a statistically significant correlation between viral qPCR and self

- reported AGI (acute gastrointestinal illness) in the population served. Borchardt ’ s work is also one of the very few studies to assess presence of enteric viruses in undisinfected ground water systems. EPA expects that complete results from Borchardt’s work will be published in a peer reviewed journal in the near future . The study results have also been presented at numerous scientific conferences as well as in testimony to the Wisconsin State Senate. A project advisory committee comprised of epidemiologists from the University of California, Berkeley, Michigan State University and the University of Washingto n provided additional peer review comments during the study planning and data analysis stages. A few commenters expressed concern s as to whether a survey of 800 undisinfected ground water systems in a sensitive hydrogeology would be nationally representati ve , noting that only specific geologic regions within the country would be included in the survey. While EPA acknowledges that the 800 undisinfected ground water systems are only a small subset of the total number of systems in the country , the selection o f 800 PWSs was statistically derived to be nationally representative of those with sensitive hydrogeology. EPA also received c omments regarding how the Agency would use data obtained from a*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 42 of 126 fo cused and limited occurrence survey, at highly vulnerable and susceptible systems, to provide meaningful data to judge nationwide occurrence and to support regulatory determination. EPA notes that r esults will provide an understanding of the exposure risks in populations potentially served by a large number of undisinfected systems in karst aquifers nationally. Lastly , some comments addressed the current information on virus- indicator correlation, suggesting that the correlations are weak. EPA notes that most virus

- indicator correlation studies have been perform ed in disinfected systems, not undisinfected ground water systems. EPA also notes that the use of multiple indicators in looking at the correlation will make this monitoring more useful.
6. Perfluorinated compounds and related methods

a. This rule EPA is finalizing the requirement for monitoring the perfluorinated compounds (PFCs) as proposed: PFOS, PFOA, PFNA, PFHxS, PFHpA, and PFBS. b. Summary of major comments EPA received public comments related to several issues with EPA Method 537, used to measure PFCs. These included: the potential for laboratory contamination; concerns that
the minimum reporting levels ( MRLs ) developed for the PFCs may be too low or too high;
and concerns about the media used to extract the contaminants. EPA successfully tested this method via a multi-laboratory validation and conducted a thorough peer- review process prior to proposal. Since then, the method has also been effectively used at additi onal labs laboratories. Contamination was not an issue at these laboratories, and the laboratories they were able to meet the proposed MRLs. While particular laboratories may be able to meet MRLs lower than those proposed, the selected MRLs reflect those achievable*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 43 of 126 by the national array of laboratories that support the program. Regarding the extraction media, the method relies on a very common sorbent (styrene divinylbenzene) that is available from a number of vendors and yields high- quality data

. E. How are la boratories approved for UCMR 3 monitoring? 1. This rule A ll laboratories conducting analyses for UCMR 3 List 1 and List 2 contaminants must receive EPA approval to perform those analyses. Laboratories seeking approval are required to provide EPA with data that demonstrate their successful completion of an initial demonstration of capability (IDC) as outli ned in each method, verify successful method performance at the MRLs as specified in this action, and successful ly participat e in an EPA PT program for the

an alytes of interest. On

- site audits of candidate laboratories may be conducted. Details of the EPA laboratory approval program are contained in the technical manual titled: “ UCMR 3 Laboratory Approval Requirements and Information Document” ( USEPA, 2012d ). This document will be available on the electronic dock et at www.regulations.gov and w ill be provided
to laboratories that register for the laboratory approval program . In addition, EPA may supply analytical reference standards of known concentrations for select analytes to participating/approved laboratories , where such standards are not readily available through commercial sources

. Pre

- Screen Testing (List 3) analyses for viruses and related pathogen indicators (i. e., total coliform s, E. coli , bacteriophage, Enterococci , and aerobic spores) are organized and paid for by EPA through direct contract s with microbial laboratories. These laboratories are not required to*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 44 of 126 go through the same formal laboratory approval proc ess as the Assessment Monitoring and Screening Survey laboratories; however, they are subject to an analogous laborator y approval
process as part of their direct contracts with EPA.

a. Laboratory Approval Process for UCMR 3 The UCMR 3 laboratory approval program is similar to the approval program under
UCMR 1 and 2. It is designed to assess and confirm the capability of laboratories to perform analyses using the methods listed in §141.40(a)(3), Table 1 , of this final rule. It will assess whether laboratories meet the required equipment, laboratory performance, and data reporting criteria described in this action. This evaluation program is voluntary in that it only applies to laborator ies intending to analyze UCMR 3 samples. However, EPA require s water systems to

use UCMR 3 approved laboratories when conducting monitoring for those analytes listed in Table 1 of §141.40(a)(3) of this final rule. A list of laboratories approved for UCMR 3 monitoring is posted to EPA ’ s UCMR w eb site: http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/ucmr/ucmr3/laboratories.cfm

. Laboratories are encouraged to apply for UCMR 3 approvals as early as possible, as schedules for large PWS sampling will be completed soon after the final rule is promulgated. The steps for the laboratory approval process are listed in the following paragraphs, b through f. b. Request to p articipate La boratories must contact EPA and request to participate in the UCMR 3 laboratory approval program. Laboratories must send th eir request to: UCMR 3 Laboratory Approval Coordinator, USEPA, Technical Support Center, 26 West Martin Luther King Drive (MS 140),*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 45 of 126 Cinc innati, OH 45268; or e mail at: UCMR_Sampling_Coordinator@epa.gov. EPA began

ac cepting requests for registration for the List 1 (Assessment Monitoring) and List 2 (Screening Survey) methods on March 03, 2011. T he final opportunity for a laboratory to request the necessary registration forms is August 1, 2012. [ INSERT DATE 90 DAYS AFTER
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE ]

.

c. Registration Each laboratory that wishes to participate in UCMR 3 monitoring must complete a registration form. R egistration information includes the following : la boratory name, mailing address, shipping address, contact na me, phone number, e mail address, and a list of the UCMR 3 methods for which the laboratory is seek ing approval. T he registration step provides EPA with the necessary contact information, and ensures that each laboratory receives a customized application package of materials and instructions for the methods that it plans to use. d. Application p ackage W hen EPA receives the registration information, a customized application package will be emailed to the laboratory for completion. Information requested in the application includes the following: IDC data, including precision , accuracy and results of MRL studies; i nformation regarding analytical equipment; p roof of current drinking water laboratory certification (for any currently regulated chemical) ; and example chromatograms for each method under review. The laboratory must post UCMR 3 monitoring results (on behalf of its PWS clients) to
EPA ’ s UCMR electronic data reporting system as a condition of maintaining EPA approval

.

e. EPA r eview of a p plication p ackage Comment [E30]: C hanged to ensure that laboratory approval can be completed prior to the start of monitoring. Also, changed in rule language.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 46 of 126 EPA will review the application package and, if necessary, request follow -up information. The laboratory must s atisfactorily complete this portion of the process before they can participate in the UCMR 3 PT program

. f. Proficiency t esting (PT) A PT sample is a synthetic sample containing a concentration of an analyte that is known
to E PA, but unkno wn to the laboratory being tested. To complete the initial laboratory approval process, a laboratory must meet specific acceptance criteria for the analysis of a UCMR 3 PT sample( s) for each method for which the laboratory is seeking approval. Initial labo ratory approval is contingent upon successful completion of a PT study. EPA will offer two to four opportunities for a laboratory to successfully analyze UCMR 3 PT samples

. At least one Two of these studies will be were conducted prior to the publication of the final rule ; at least one study will be conducted after publication of the final rule. This will allow laboratories to complete their portion of the laboratory approval process prior to publication of the final rule, and th erefore receive their approval immediately following the publication of the final rule, or to wait until the final rule is published before completing the required laboratory approval analyses. A laboratory
must pass one of the PT studies for each analytical method for which t hey are requesting approval. Laboratories applying for UCMR 3 approval and laboratories conducting UCMR 3 analyses, may be subject to on

- site laboratory audits. No PT studies will be conducted after the start of monitoring; however, laboratory audits will be ongoing throughout the entire monitoring period of 2013-2015. Continued laboratory approval is contingent upon successful participation in any audits conducted by EPA. Comment [JL31]: This looks like language from the proposed rule. At this point you can say how many were completed prior to publication, no? Comment [E32]: Ed its made to address OMB comment.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 47 of 126 g. Wr itten EPA a pproval After laboratories successfully complete steps “b” through “f” of the laboratory approval
process , EPA will send the laboratory a letter listing (a) the method (s) for which approval is pending (if the PT study and laboratory evaluation are conducted prior to promulgation of the final rule) or (b) approval is granted

. (after promulgation of the final rule). Laboratories receiving a pending approval letter ( prior to final rule promulgation) will be considered approved without further action , following promulgation of the final rule

. . 2. Summary of major comments Three commenters suggested that EPA modify the requirements for PT samples in
UCMR 3 by including a round of PT samples during the UCMR 3 monitoring period in addition to the initial ro und of PT samples conducted prior to monitoring. Instead of requiring
l aboratories to conduct ongoing PT samples, EPA will conduct ongoing laboratory audit s similar
to the process under UCMR 2. Ongoing laboratory audits will allow EPA to evaluate each laboratory’s analytical processes for all aspects of sample receipt, storage, processing, analysis and reporting of routine samples. This will provide a better mechanism , compared to an additional PT study, for uncover ing any potential data issues and ensuring that laboratories meet the quality requirements.

F. How Were Minimum Reporting Levels Determined? 1. This rule Lowest Concentration Minimum Reporting Levels ( L CMR Ls ) and Minimum Reporting Levels ( MRLs ) for each analyte were determined through an EPA LCMRL study assessing the Comment [JL33]: Update to reflect that rule is now promulgated. Comment [E34]: Ed i ts made as requested.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 48 of 126 da ta from multiple laboratories prior to publication of the UCMR 3 proposal. The LCMRL is defined as the lowest spiking concentration at which recovery of between 50 and 150% is expected 99% of the time by a single analyst. The LCMRL is estimated using advanced statistical procedures that have been incorpor ated into an LCMRL calculator tool that is available on EPA ’ s w ebsite ( http://water.epa.gov/scitech/drinkingwater/labcert/analyticalmethods_ogwdw.cfm ). The tool

es timates a probability distribution for spike recovery as a function of spiking concentration.
MRL
EPA revis ed the definition of the MRL used in UCMR 2 (72 FR 367, January 4, 2007, (USEPA, 2007)) . The revised definition reflects improvements in the statistical procedures for determining the LCMRL and MRL. These improvements were implemented by EPA to make the models more robust, i.e., so that the models can accommodate a wider range of observed
LCMRL data sets (USEPA, 2010f) . The MRL for an analyte measured by a specified analytical method is designed to be an estimate of an LCMRL that is achievable, with 95% confidence, by a capable analyst/laboratory at least 75% of the time. Such a demonstration of ability to reliably make quality measurements at the MRL is intended to achieve high quality measurements across the nation ’ s laboratories.
In UCMR 3 , EPA estimated the MRL for an analyte/method by obtaining data from several labora tories performing corresponding LC MRL studies. These data were used to construct an approximation to the distribution that would result from picking at random a laboratory/analyst proficient in performing the analytical method and having them perform an*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 49 of 126LCMRL study and compute an LCMRL estimate. The strategy for computing the MRL is twofold. First, for each LCMRL data set, a distribution for repeated LCMRL determinations by the same laboratory/analyst is estimated by generating a large number of simulated values. Second, these values are c ombined to create an estimated overall distribution. If a result from one of the laboratories is significantly higher than that of other laboratories, this value would be downweighted using a robust weight function. The resulting weighted values are used to construct a probability distribution from which the MRL is computed as the 95th percentile.
2. Summary of major comments Several commenters remarked on the complexity of the procedures for determining the LCMRL and the MRL . These commenters were concerned about the amount of time and effort needed to calculate LCMRLs and MRLs. Some suggested that as an alternative, EPA use the procedure developed for consideration by the Clean Water Act as part of the Federal Advisory Committee on Detection and Quantitatio n. As a point of clarification, EPA notes that laboratories that participate in UCMR 3 do not need to use the LCMRL and MRL procedures. Instead, l aboratories that participate in UCMR 3 will be required to demonstrate their ability to meet the already

- estab lished UCMR 3 analyte MRLs by analyzing reagent water samples spiked at or be low the established UCMR 3 MRLs. This initial demonstration of capability ( IDC ) requirement , as described in EPA’ s “ UCMR 3 Laboratory Approval Requirements and Information Document ,” is no more complex than determining a Me thod Detection Limit (MDL) (USEPA, 2012d). A di verse selection of laboratories representing different size s , experience and business*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 50 of 126 status were selected to participate in the EPA LCMRL studies (as described previously in this section)

. For transparency, EPA will provide s ummary tables showi ng all LCMRL results for
UCMR 3 in the docket (USEPA, 201 2a 2012d ). With regard to comments that the MRLs are being set well below health reference levels ( HRLs ) in certain cases, EPA believes that this is appropriate because new health effects data may become available in the future that result in lower HRLs.

G. What are t he UCMR 3 reporting requirements? 1. General Reporting Requirements/SDWARS
a. This rule Under this rule, EPA is committed to pre -popul ating the inventory and monitoring data in the reporting system (Safe Drinking Water Accession and Review System (SDWARS)), using data from UCMR 2 and SDWIS/Fed information. For PWSs subject to UCMR 3 that have data in SDWARS from UCMR 2 , EPA will transfer data to “ SDWARS 3 ” (i.e., the SDWARS update

as sociated with UCMR 3). F or water systems that are new to UCMR , EPA will pull the available information from SDWIS/Fed and coordinate with States and EPA Regions for their input where possible. EPA will load has loaded the available information into SDWARS 3 prior to the publication of this final rule. PWSs will then have until October 1, 2012, to update, edit, or change their information or monitoring schedule in SDWARS 3 (see Section III.G.4 for further discussion of reporting deadlines). b. Summary of ma jor comments*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 51 of 126 Several commenters expressed concern over possible inefficiencies related to data entry into SDWARS, including concern over duplication of past efforts (e.g., having to re

- enter information for each sample point for each sampling event ) and ti me spent identifying representative sampling locations at both the EPTDS and DSMRT for UCMR 2. Commenters further noted it would be very helpful if elements that are duplicated for each sample would be automatically pre -filled in each field once the inform ation was entered the first time. As noted, for UCMR 3, EPA plans to preload as much inventory to SDWARS as possible and is taking commenter suggestions into consideration in its design updates to SDWARS. The pre

- loaded data will include representative sampling locations previously identified at as the EPTDS and
DSMRT locat ion s . PWSs will be asked to verify their inventory in SDWARS and large systems may be required to revise this information once their ground water representative monitoring plan has been approved, depending on the level of their S tate ’ s involvement. S ee Section III.G.4 for discussion of reporting deadlines.
2. Sample location and inventory information (z ip c odes)
a. This rule This final rule establishes a requirement for reporting zip codes associated with all PWS
customers. EPA had proposed reporting of sampling point U.S. Postal Service Z ip C ode s and the zip codes of all customers served by a given sampling point (as part of the reporting associated with Data Element 4 – Sampling Point Identification Code ). Obtaining the z ip code of the sampling point was intended to assist with future vulnerability assessments. Zip codes that tie populations served to each sampling point were intended to assist with future occurrence and*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 52 of 126 exposure analyses. However, based on stakeholder concerns about the burden associated with reporting this information and concerns about the usefulness of having the zip code of the sampling point , EPA revised the rule language to establish a requirement of only reporting zi p codes for customers served by the PWS. These reporting specifications are now established in §§141.35 (c)( 1) and (d)( 1) for large and small systems, respectively. EPA believes that required reporting of customer zip codes will provide EPA with useful information for future occurrence analyses.
b. Summary of major comments Eight comments were received regarding the proposed zip code reporting requirements. Most commenters believed that reporting the zip code for each sampling point location would not provide EPA with the information necessary to make future correlations between water quality and the areas served by the water being distributed. After considering public comments,
EPA has revised the reporting requirement to only include the zip code s served by the PWS

.

3. Disinfectant Type Specifications
a. This rule EPA is changing Data Element 6, in Table 1 of 141.35(e). Under UCMR 2, this data element was established to provide information on “ Disinfectant Residual Type ” as it related to monitoring for nitrosamines (part of UCMR 2 Screening Survey monitoring). EPA is modifying the definition of this data element to account for changes to the analyte and monitoring specifications between UCMR 2 and UCMR 3 . This revised definition lists additional*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 53 of 126 disinfectant types to provide more specific information on the sources and types of disinfectant schemes that may lead to chlorate formation/occurrence in drinking water.
b. Summary of major comments While commenters were supportive of the collection of these data, several commenters noted th at the requirement for reporting this data element was unclear. Some commenters noted that PWSs frequently use multiple disinfectants and reporting only one of those would provide an inaccurate assessment of disinfectants being used. Others noted that EPA needed to make sure that PWSs indicate whether their hypochlorite solution was generated on or off site (onsite: essentially no storage of stock solution will be needed; offsite: the storage of stock solution will be needed). EPA agrees that the presentati on of the requirements warranted clarification and has revised the list of disinfectants. EPA will clearly indicate in the data reporting system (SDWARS) that PWSs should identify all of the disinfectants used to treat the water

.

4. Reporting schedule
a. Th is rule To help ensure that monitoring and reporting are conducted as scheduled, UCMR 3 specifies several deadlines related to initial reporting of inventory and scheduling information, as well as reporting of monitoring data. Several deadlines were newly proposed for UCMR 3 (i.e., not used for UCMR 1 or UCMR 2 ) and finalized in this rule, and some are revised in t his final rule to ensure that UCMR 3 is implemented as scheduled. These deadlines are being established*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 54 of 126 to a llow EPA enough time to review and process the information, and complete the planning process for UCMR 3 monitoring to begin on January 1, 2013. C hanges in deadlines only affect large systems. There are no changes to small system reporting schedules. The schedule changes that are finalized in t his rule include:

**•** Inventory and Scheduling : L ar ge systems that are subject to UCMR 3 must report their inventory and sampling location information (141.35(c)(2)), and any proposed changes to their monitoring schedule (141.35(c)(5)(i) and 141.40(a)(4)(i)) no later than October 1, 2012. As noted, EPA will has load ed existing information into SDWARS 3 prior to the publication of this final rule. PWSs will have until October 1, 2012 to update, edit, or change their inv entory and sample location information or monitoring schedule in
SDWARS 3

.

**•** Ground water representative monitoring plans: As described in 141.35 (c)(3), large systems that use ground water sources and that have multiple EPTDSs can, with prior approval, conduct monitoring at representative sampling locations rather than at each EPTDS. For systems that have existing approved representative monitoring plans, their approved sampling location information will be pre -loaded into SDWARS and systems must review and conf irm, or update this information by October 1, 2012. This rule establishes a deadline of August June 1, 2012 for submi tting a new ground water representative plan to be reviewed by the State or EPA

.

**•** Monitoring d ata : T his rule re - establishes two revised deadlines related to reporting of Comment [JL35]: Can we push back a bit? Comment [E36]: Date moved to August 1.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 55 of 126 monitoring data : l arge systems must require their laboratories to post data to SDWARS within 90 120 days of sample collection (previously 120 days) ; and large systems must review, approve, and submit the data to the ir State and EPA within 30 60 days of when the laboratory posts the data. These time frames are specified in 141.35(c)(6)(ii) and 141.40(a)(5)(vi).
b. Summary of major comments Five comments were received on the reduced laboratory reporting timeframe. Most commenters did not support the 60- day proposed timeframe for laborator ies to post data to
SDWARS and expressed several concerns: that laboratories may see increased workload due to additional monitoring; that UCMR 3 methods are not in common use and are very sensitive, so greater validation of results may be required; and that field blank analysis may be required for some methods, resulting in longer turnaround times for sampling re sults. Commenters did not believe that the reduced reporting timeframe would increase compliance with monitoring schedules. Seven comments were also received regarding the 30- day proposed timeframe for large PWS s to review and approve their data

. The major ity of the commenters requested the timeframe be returned to th e 60-day period used under UCMR 1 and 2. Commenters believe the shortened timeframe would not give PWSs sufficient time to conduct a full data review and that schedule coordination among multip le staff would be difficult. After considering the public
comments, EPA has increased changed returned the laboratory reporting timeframe to 90 120 days after sample collection (same as earlier UCMRs) (compared to 60 days in the proposed rule and 120 days in earl ier UCMRs) and return ed ing retained the PWS reporting timeframe to 6 0 of Comment [JL37]: I did not understand that 90 days was still shorter than the deadlines in the earlier UCMRs. Why can’t you stick with the prior deadlines? Comment [E38]: Ba s ed on our experience with UCMR2, laboratories demonstrated that 90% of the time they reported data within 90 days. (75% of labs reported within 60 days.) Having data earlier makes it available to the public sooner and better supports our office mission (e.g., cVOC Rule, a priority for the Administrator). JL: I don’t see that 30 days makes much difference to the public. Suggest putting it back to 120 days.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 56 of 126 30 days after laboratory posting data

. (same as earlier UCMRs)

. . EPA believes that these turn

around

- times are feasible given historical information from UCMR 2 on laboratory reporti ng and system approval of data :

**•** Laboratory posting of data to SDWARS : 90% of the data posted by laboratories were posted within 92 days of sample collection.

**•** PWS approval of laboratory data: 65% of PWSs chose to explicitly approve their data, as opposed to allowing automatic approval by SDWARS 60 days after laboratory posting of data ; of PWSs that explicitly approved their data, 90% did so within 35 days of the laboratory posting data

. .

IV. State and Tribal P articipation A. Partnership agreements 1. This rule Under UCMR 3, States may continue to have a role in rule implementation through Partnership Agreements (PAs) . Because specific activities for individual States are identified and established through the PAs, not through rul e language, this rule does not contain reference to
PAs.
2. Summary of major comments EPA received no c omments regarding State participation in UCMR 3.

B. Governors’ petition and state
- wi de waivers Comment [JL39]: This is not very convincing. What is the downsid e of allowing the same amount of time that you did for the other two UCMRs? Comment [E40]: Re v ised back to 60 day, PWS reporting deadline.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 57 of 126 1. T his rule This rule retains the UCMR 1 and 2 language that, consistent with SDWA, allows a minimum of seven State Governors to petition EPA to add contaminants to the UCMR Contaminant list. This rule also retains the UCMR 1 and 2 language that allows States to waive monitoring requirements with EPA approval and under very limited conditions.
2. Summary of major comments EPA received no c omments regarding the governor ’ s petition or state

- wide waiver allowances of UCMR 3.

V. Cost and Benefits of This R ule In this rule, EPA finalizes a new set of contaminants for monitoring in the third five

- year UCMR monitoring period. UCMR 3 also incorporates modifications to improve the rule design.
UCMR 3 Assessment Monitoring (for List 1 contaminants) will be conducted from January 2013 through December 2015 by 800 systems serving 10,000 or fewer people, and by all systems serving more than 10,000 people. The 800 small systems will be randomly selected for List 1 monitoring. The UCMR 3 Screening Survey (for List 2 contaminants) will be conducted f rom January 2013 through December 2015 by all systems serving a population of greater than 100,000 people, a nationally representative set of 320 systems serving between 10,001 and 100,000 people , and a nationally representative set of 480 systems serving less than 10,000 people. T he nationally representative set s of 320 and 480 systems will both be randomly selected for List 2 monitoring. The Pre

- Screen Testing for List 3 contaminants will also be conducted from January 2013 through December 2015 in 800 undisinfected ground water systems serving*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 58 of 126 1,000 or fewer persons (different systems than those selected for List 1 monitoring)

. No small system will be selected for more than one UCMR 3 monitoring list. It is assumed for this cost estimate that one -third of systems will monitor during each of the three monitoring years. Labor costs pertain to systems, States, and EPA . They include activities such as reading the regulation, notifying systems selected to participate, training water system staff on sample collection procedures, sample collection, including travel time to collect samples, data review, reporting, and record keeping. Non- labor costs will be incurred primarily by EPA and by large PWSs. They include the cost of shipping samples to laboratories for te sting and the cost of the actual laboratory analyses.
In this rule , EPA specifie s seven EPA -developed analytical methods and four equivalent consensus organization developed methods to monitor for 2 8 7 UCMR 3 unregulated chemical contaminants, and two virus es , and total chromium

. for a total of 30 contaminants. While this preamble also describes the analytical methods that w il l be used for virus monitoring, the rule does not address these methods. Laboratory approval for virus monitoring is not addressed since all of the analyses for the two viruses will be conducted in laboratories under EPA contract and
at EPA ’s expense. E stimated system and EPA costs are based o n the analytical costs for all
UCMR 3 methods. With the exception of Methods 200.8 and 300.1 , these methods are comparatively new and w ill not coincide with other compliance monitoring (i.e. , no cost savings for concurrent monitoring can be realized). Laboratory analysis and shipping of samples account for approxim ate ly 8 2 9 % of the total national cost for UCMR 3 implementation. These costs are calculated as follows: the number of*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 59 of 126 systems, multiplied by the number of sampling locations, multiplied by the sampling frequency, multiplied by the unit cost of laboratory analysis. Under UCMR 3 , for List 1 Assessment Monitoring and List 2 Screening Survey , surface water (and g round water under the direct influence of surface water ( GWUDI )) sampling points w ill be monitored four times during the applicable year of monit oring, and ground water sample points w ill be monitored twice during the applicable year of monitoring. Systems w ill monitor for the metals – cobalt, molybdenum, vanadium, strontium, chromium-6, and total chromium – as well as chlorate, at their EPTDS sampling locations and at one dist ribution system sampling point per treatment plant (i.e., at the
DSMRT ). Pre

- Screen Testing systems w ill monitor two times during the three year monitoring period (2013 through 2015) at their EPTD S. Following publication of the proposed rule and EPA’ s init i al cost and burden estimates, EPA received several cost

- related public comments. Several suggested that EPA ’ s estimates of cost and burden (e.g., laboratory and estimated labor burden) to PWSs were too low. EPA estimates of laboratory fees are based on c onsultations with commercial drinking water laboratories and a review of the costs of similar analytical methods. In response to comments, EPA revisited the analytical method cost estimates. EPA approached four commercial drinking water laboratories and re ques ted pricing estimates for UCMR 3 methods, including the cost of field blanks for methods 524.3 (VOCs), 537 (PFCs), and 539 (hormones). EPA averaged the estimates from the four laboratories and updated the cost figures , which resulted in increased cost estimates for some to reflect the increase s per method s . With respect to per

- system burden estimates, EPA notes that all estimates represent Comment [JL41]: Did this cause costs to go up or down? Comment [E42]: Edited to address OMB comment.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 60 of 126 ave rage burden hours, which include surface water systems that may have very few sampling points, and thus lower sampling burden, as well as those systems with higher number s of sampling points that would have greater labor burden. Moreover, a system ’s burden is primarily incurred during its one year of required UCMR monitoring (between January 2013 and Decembe r 2015). However, in compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), these cost and burden estimates are presented as an average over the applicable three -year information collection request (ICR) period (2012 - 2014). Small systems (those serving 10,000 or fewer people) will have the lowest burden not only because they generally have fewer sampling locations, but also because these systems will receive substantial direct assistance from EPA and/or their State. The total cost of the Assessment Monitoring analys i e s analysis for the UCMR 3 chemicals is estimated at $ 1,503 1,085 per sample set (at the EPTDS) where contaminants are not detected, and field blank samples for methods 524.3 (VOCs), 537 (PFCs), and 539 (hor mones) do not have to be analyzed. The cost to analyze both a UCMR sample and a field blank sample (where contaminants are detected) for the three methods above ) is estimated at $2,300

. The total cost of the single Screening Survey method is estimated at $ 418 per sample set

. Field blank analyses costs are not included in these estimates but are Additional costs related to UCMR

- specific field blank requirements are also included in estimat ing the cost of laboratory analyses ; this is further described in “Information Collection Request for the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (UCMR 3)” (USEPA, 2012a). The cost to EPA of the Pre

- Screen analyses for viruses and related pathogen indicators (i.e., total coliform s, E. coli , bacteriophage , Enterococci , and Comment [JL43]: These costs are for all 28 contaminants? Comment [E44]: Clarified the language. Comment [JL45]: Previously you had a specific number for this, why did you drop it? Who has to pay this $2300? Is it done for each sample set? Comment [E46]: The $2300 that was previously listed addressed the cost for all samples under Assessment Monitoring and was prior t o moving PFCs to the Screening Survey. That cost included field blank analyses. These field blank costs are not included in these subdivided Assessment and Screening Survey costs, shown in the paragraph, since field blanks are only analyzed if there is a positive measurement in the water system sample. This is expected to be the exception, not the norm, so typically no additional cost will be incurred. Further detail is provided in the ICR. EPA (for small systems) or large PWSs would typically pay for field blank analyses, if analysis is necessary. Often times this is part of the contract negotiations between laboratories and their clients and the laboratories will sometimes forgo the fee if they anticipate field blank analysis is rarely required.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 61 of 126 aero bic spores ) is estimated at $1,880 per sample set. Shipping estimates are added to the calculated costs to der ive the total direct analytical non -labor costs. Estimated shipping costs were based on the average cost of sh ipping a 25-pound package. In preparing the UCMR 3 ICR, EPA relied on standard assumptions and data sources used in the preparation of other drinking water program ICRs. These include the PWS inventory, number of sampling points per system, and labor rates . EPA expects that States will incur only labor costs associated with voluntary assistance with UCMR 3 implementation. State costs were estimated using the relevant modules of the State Resource Model that was developed by the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA) in conjunction with EPA (ASDWA, 2003) to help States forecast resource needs. Model estimates were adjusted to account for actual levels of State participation under UCMR. Because State participation is voluntary, level of eff ort will vary across States and depend on their individual agreements with
EPA. Over the UCMR implementation period of 2012- 2016, EPA estimates that nationwide, the average annual cost of UCMR 3 is approximately $ 17.45 19. 8 million , of which water systems and States will pay approximately $ 13.3 million; and EPA will pay $4.14 million ( m ost of which is associated with small system monitoring )

. These total estimated annual costs (labor and non- labor) are incurred as follows:

Respondent Avg. Annual Cost . All Respondents (2012
- 20 16) Small Systems (25

- 10,000), including labor only, non

- labor costs paid for by EPA $ 0.05 2 0.066 m Comment [JL47]: T his is averaged over three years so the total cost of the program is three times this, is that right? Or is this annualized over a longer period? Comment [E48]: The costs in the table are averaged over the 5 years of the UCMR implementation period. Total UCMR 3 costs a re 5 times these annual figures and are addressed in the paragraph below the table for clarification.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 62 of 126 Large Systems (10,001

- 100,000), including labor and non

- labor costs $ 11. 8 9.55 m Very Large Systems (100,001 and greater), including labor and non

- labor costs $2.9 4 m States, including labor costs related to implementation coordination $0.75 m EPA, including labor for implementation, non

- labor for small system testing $ 4. 2 4.14 m AVERAGE ANNUAL NATIONAL TOTAL 1 $ 19. 8 17.45 m 1. Average Annual National Total of $ 17.45 19.8 million is based on rounding.

Over the period of 2012

- 2016, EPA estimates that nationwide, the total cost of UCMR 3 is approximately $87 million, of which water systems and States will pay approximately $66 million and EPA will pay $21 million. Additional details regarding EPA ’s cost assumptions and estimates can be found in the
ICR amendment prepared for this final rule (Office of Management and Budget (OMB) number 2040-NEW), which presents estimated cost and burden for the 2012-2014 period (USEPA, 2012a) . Estimates of costs over the entire five

- year UCMR 3 period of 2012-2016 are attached as an appendix to the ICR. Copies of the ICR and its amendment may be obtained from the EPA public docket for this final rule under Docket ID Number EPA- HQ

- OW

- 20 09-0090.

VI. Sta tutory and Executive Order R eviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning an d Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) , and Executive Order
13563 (76 FR. 3821, January 21, 2011 , this action is a “ significant regulatory action. ” Accord ingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011) and any Comment [JL49]: This clarification is very helpful. Thanks. EPA : Thank you for the feedback.

Comment [E50]: Tw o clarifications to this section.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 63 of 126 chan ges made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action. In addition, EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this action. This analysis is contained in the “ Information Collection Request for the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation ( UCMR 3)” ( USEPA, 2012a) . A copy of the analysis is available in the docket for this action and the analysis is briefly summarized in Section V of the preamble of this final rule.

B. Pa perwork Reduction Act The information collection requirements in this rule have been s ubmi tted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act , 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq . The information collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them. The information collected under this final rule fulf ills the statutory requirements of Section 1445(a)(2) of SDWA, as amended in 1996. The data collected will describe the source of the water, location, and test results for samples taken from PWSs. The concentrations of any identified UCMR contaminants wi ll be evaluated in conjunction with health effects information and will be considered for future regulation accordingly. Reporting is mandatory. The data are not subject to confidentiality protection. The annual burden and cost estimates described in this section are for the implementation assumptions described in Section V. Cost and Benefits of the Rule. Respondents to the UCMR 3*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 64 of 126 will include 1,600 2,080 small water systems (800 for Assessment Monitoring, 480 for Screening Survey, and 800 for Pre- Screen Testing), the 4,215 large PWSs (those serving more than 10,000 people) , and the 56 States and Primacy agencies ( 5,871 6,351 total respondents). The frequency of response varies across respondents and years. System costs (particularly laboratory analytical costs) vary depending on the number of sampling locations. For cost estimate s, it is assumed thatsystems will conduct sampling evenly across January 2013 through December 2015 (i.e., onethird of systems in each of the 3 consecutive 12-month periods). Because the applicable ICR period is 2012-2014, the third year of monitoring activity (i.e., January through December of 2015) is not captured in the current ICR estimates. The burden and cost estimates presented in this section represent aver age costs. In some cases, the costs are presented as an annual average. Average burden or cost per system was derived by calculating total costs, and dividing by the total number of systems expected to monitor during the ICR years of 2012-2014. Average annual burden or cost per system was derived by summing total costs (or burden), dividing by the number of systems expected to monitor during the ICR years of 2012-2014, and then dividing by three years. The total costs and the annual average costs over the ICR years of 2012-2014 are presented in Exhibit 7. Total and annual average costs for the entire 5 -year UCMR 3 period can be found in the ICR for UCMR 3, available in the docket for this final rule. Small systems (those serving 10,000 or fewer) that a re s elected for UCMR 3 monitoring will sample an average of 1.8 2. 3 times per system (i.e., number of responses per system) across the three -year ICR period of 2012-2014. The average burden per response for small systems is*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 65 of 126 estimated to be 3.8 3. 1 hours. Large systems (those serving 10,001 to 100,000 people) and very large systems (those serving more than 100,000 people) will sample and report an average of 2.7 and 3.7 times per system, respectively, across the three -year ICR period of 2012- 2014. The average burden per response for large and very large systems is estimated to be 9.2 9. 1 and
10.2 9.4 hours , respectively. States are assumed to have an average of 1.0 response per year (3.0 responses per State across the three -year ICR period of 2012-2014) , related to coordination with EPA and systems, with an average burden per response of 233 hours. In aggregate, during the ICR period of 2012- 2014, the average response (e.g. , responses from systems and States) is associated with a burden of 11.6 11. 3 hours, with a labor plus non- labor cost of $ 4,218 4,9 84 per response. Exhibit 7 presents respondent burden and cost estimates for the ICR period of 2012-
2014.

Exhibit 7 : UCMR 3 Per Respondent Burden and Cost Summary for the ICR Period (2012-2014) Burden (hours)/ Cost (dollars) Small Systems Large Systems Very Large Systems States Na t ional Average Three
- Year Total Per Respondent Total # of Responses Per Respondent (hr) 1.8 2.3 2.7 3.7 3.0 2.5 2.7 Labor Cost Per Respondent $160 $162 $775 $767 $1,437 $1,32 7 $41,975 $1,160 $1,229
Non

- Labor Cost Per Respondent $0 $11,785 $14, 756 $34,181 $0 $9,237 $11,904 Total Cost (Labor plus Non

- Labor) $160 $162 $12,560 $15, 524 $35,619 $35, 508 $41,975 $10,397 $13,133 Total Cost Per Response $89 $69 $4,677 $5,78 1 $9,704 $9,67 3 $13,992 $4,218 $4,927 Total Burden Per Respondent (hr) 6.9 7.0 24.8 24.6 37.5 34.6 700.1 28.7 30.1 Total Burden Per Response (hr) 3.8 3.0 9.24 9.1 10.2 9.4 233.4 11.6 11.3 Average Annual Per Respondent*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 66 of 126 Exhi bit 7 : UCMR 3 Per Respondent Burden and Cost Summary for the ICR Period (2012-2014) Burden (hours)/ Cost (dollars) Small Systems Large Systems Very Large Systems States Na t ional Average Ave. # of Responses Per Respondent (hr) 0.6 0.8 0.9 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.9 Labor Cost Per Respondent $53 $54 $258 $256 $479 $442 $13,992 $387 $410
Non

- Labor Cost Per Respondent $0 $3,928 $4,91 9 $11,394 $0 $3,079 $3,968 Ave. Cost (Labor plus Non

- Labor) $53 $54 $4,187 $5,17 5 $11,873 $11, 836 $13,992 $3,466 $4,378 Ave. Cost Per Response $30 $23 $1,559 $1,92 7 $3,235 $3,22 4 $4,664 $1,406 $1,642 Ave. Burden Per Respondent (hr) 2.3 8.3 8.2 12.5 11.6 233.4 9.6 10 Ave. Burden Per Response (hr) 1.3 1.0 3.1 3.0 3.4 3.1 61.3 3.9 3.8
The average per respondent burden hours and costs per year for the ICR period of 2012- 2014 are: small systems – 2.3 hour burden at $ 53 5 4 for labor; large systems – 8.3 8.2 hours at $ 258 25 6 for labor, and $ 3,928 4,9 19 for analytical costs; very large systems – 12.5 1 1. 6 hours at $ 479 442 for labor, and $11,394 for analytical costs; and States – 233.4 hours at $13,992 for
labor. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). Exhibit 8 shows the annual and total national cost and burden for UCMR 3 implementation over the ICR period of 2012-2014.

Exhibit 8 : UCMR 3 Annual National Cost and Burden (2012-2014) Cost (in millions) 2012 2013 2014 Total Small System Costs $0 $ 0.11 $ 0.11 $ 0.22 Large System Costs $0 $ 15.92 $ 15.92 $ 31 .84 Very Large System Costs $0 $4.9 0 $4.9 0 $9.8 1 State Costs $0.33 $1.0 $1.0 $ 2.4 Comment [JL51]: Please add national burden hour and cost estimates per year for the ICR approval period. I assume these will be lower than the annualized costs in Section V because you are taking two years of substantive compliance and spreading it over three years. Comment [E52]: Ad de d table.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 67 of 126 Exhibit 8 : UCMR 3 Annual National Cost and Burden (2012-2014) Cost (in millions) 2012 2013 2014 Total EPA Costs $0.92 $ 6.63 $ 6.57 $ 14.12 TOTAL COST $ 1.26 $ 28.55 $ 28.53 $ 58.34 Total Burden (thousand s of hours) for All Responses 2012 2013 2014 Total Small Systems 0 4.8 4.8 9.5 Large Systems 0 31.5 31.5 62.9 Very Large Systems 0 5.2 5.2 10.3 States 13.3 13.6 12.2 39.2 EPA 5.7 11.4 11.4 28.6
TOTAL BURDEN 19.1 66.5 65.1 150.6

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA ’s regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When this ICR is approved by OMB, the Agency will publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to display the OMB control number for the approved information collection requirements contained in this final rule.

C. Re gulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency

c ertifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 68 of 126 sm all entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. The RFA provides default definitions for each type of small entity. Small entities are defined as: (1) a small business as defined by the Small Business Administration’ s (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any “ not

- for -profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” However, the RFA also authorizes an agency to u se alternative definitions for each category of small entity, “ which are appropriate to the activities of the agency ” after proposing the alternative definition(s) in the Federal Register and taking comment (5 U.S.C. 601(3) - (5)). In addition, to establis h an alternative small business definition, agencies must consult with SBA’ s Chief Counsel for Advocacy. For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small entities, EPA considered small
ent ities to be PWSs serving 10,000 or fewer people, because this is the system size specified in SDWA as requiring special consideration with respect to small system flexibility. As required by the RFA, EPA proposed using this alternative def inition in the Federal Register (63 FR 7606, February 13, 1998 (USEPA, 1998a)), requested public comment, consulted with the SBA, and finalized the alternative definition in the Consume r Confidence Reports rulemaking (63 FR 44512, August 19, 1998 (USEPA, 1998b)). As stated in C onsistent with in that Final Rule, the alternative def inition will be has been applied to future subsequent drinking water regulations, including this regulation. Comment [E53]: Continued with OMB edit.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 69 of 126 After considering the economic impacts of this rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The small entities directly regulated by this rule are PWSs serving 10,000 or fewer people. EPA has determined that the small entities subject to the requirements of this rule are a subset of the small PWSs (those serving 10,000 or fewer people). The Agency has determined that 1,600 2,080 small PWSs (across Assessment Monitoring , Screening Survey, and Pre- Screen Testing), or approximately 3 % of small syst ems, will experience an impact of no more than 0.4 % of revenues; the remainder of small systems will not be impacted. Although this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA has tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities. To ensure that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA will assume all costs for analyses of the samples and for shipping the samples from these systems to the laboratories contracted by EPA to analyze UCMR 3 samples. EPA has set aside $2.0 million each year from the State Revolving Fund (S RF) with its authority to use SRF monies for the purposes of implementing this provision of SDWA. Thus, the costs to these small systems will be limited to the labor hours associated with 8 0 0 2,080 small systems assisting EPA
in collecting a n Assessment Mo nitoring UCMR sample s and preparing it them for shipping. The evaluation of the overall impact on small systems, summarized in the preceding discussion, is further described as follows. EPA analyzed the impacts for privately -owned and publicly- owned water systems separately due to the different economic characteristics of these ownership types, such as different rate structures and profit goals. For both publicly- and*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 70 of 126 priv ately -owned systems, EPA used the “ revenue test, ” which compares annual system costs attributed to the rule to the system ’s annual revenues. Median revenue data from the 2006 Community Water System Survey Volume II: Detailed Tables and Survey Methodology ( http://water.epa.gov/aboutow/ogwdw/upload/cwssreportvolumeII2006.pdf ) were used for public and private water systems. EPA assumes that the distribution of the sample of participating small systems will reflect the proporti ons of publicly- and privately-owned systems in the national inventory. The estimated distribution of the representative sample, categorized by ownership type, source water, and system size, is presented in Exhibit 8 9

.

Exhibit 8 9 : Number of Publicly - and Privately
- Owned Small Systems Subject to UCMR 3 System Size (# of people served) Publicly -Owned Privately

- Owned Total
Ground Water 500 and under 134 121 402 364 536 485 501 to 3,300 548 451 208 172 757 623 3,301 to 10,000 286 179 66 41 352 220 Subtotal GW 968 751 677 577 1,645 1,328 Surface Water (and GWUDI) 500 and under 7 5 9 5 16 10 501 to 3,300 98 61 35 22 133 83 3,301 to 10,000 222 139 64 40 286 179 Subtotal SW 327 205 108 67 435 272 Total of Small Water Systems 1,295 956 785 644 2,080 1,600*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 71 of 126 The basis for the UCMR 3 RFA certification for this final rule is as follows: for the 1,600 2,080 small water systems that will be affected, the average annual costs for complying with this rule represent 0.4% of system revenues (the highest estimated percentage is for grou nd water systems serving 500 or fewer people, at 0.4 0 1 % of its median revenue). Exhibit 9 10 presents th e yearly annual costs to small systems and to EPA for the small system sampling program, along with an illustration of system participation for each year of the UCMR 3 program.

Exhibit 9 10 : EPA and Systems Costs for Implementation of UCMR 3 at Small Systems Cost Description 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total Costs to EPA for Small System Program (including Assessment Monitoring, Screening Survey, and Pre

- Screen Testing)
$0 $ 5 , 407 , 23 3 5, 550,429 $ 5 , 407 , 23 3 5, 550,429 $ 5 , 407 , 23 3 5 ,550,429 $0 $ 16 , 221 , 69 8 1 6,651,288 Costs to Small Systems (including Assessment Monitoring, Screening Survey, and Pre- Screen Testing):
$0 $ 110 , 7 20 86, 405 $ 110 , 7 20 86, 405 $ 110 , 7 20 86, 405 $0 $ 332 , 1 60 259, 214 Total Costs to EPA and Small Systems for UCMR 3:
$0 $ 5,517,953 5, 636,834 $ 5,517,953 5, 636,834 $ 5,517,953 5 ,636,834 $0 $ 16 , 553 , 85 8 1 6,910,502 System Monitoring Activity Timeline: 1
Assessment Monitoring 1/3 PWSs Sample 1/3 PWSs Sample 1/3 PWSs Sample 800 Screening Survey 1/3 PWSs Sample 1/3 PWSs Sample 1/3 PWSs Sample 480*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 72 of 126 Pre

- Screen Testing 1/3 PWSs Sample 1/3 PWSs Sample 1/3 PWSs Sample 800
1 Total number of systems is 1,600 2,080 . No small system conducts more than one type of monitoring study.

System costs are attributed to the labor required for reading about their requirements, train ing staff on requirements, monitoring, including travel time needed to collect samples, reporting, and record keeping. The estimated average annual burden across the five

- year UCMR 3 implementation period of 2012-2016 is estimated to be 1.4 hours at $32 per small system. Average annual cost, in all cases, is less than or equal to 0.4 0 1 % of system revenues. As required b y SDWA, the Agency specifically structured the rule to avoid significantly affecting small entities by assuming all costs for laboratory analyses, shipping, and quality control for small entities. As a result, EPA incurs the entirety of the non

- labor costs associated with
UCMR 3 small system monitoring, or 99 98 % of total small system testing costs. Exhibits 1 1 10 and 1 2 11 present the estimated economic impacts in the form of a revenue test for publicly - and privately -owned systems.

Exhibit 1 1 10 : UCMR 3 Relative Cost Analysis for Small Publicly
- Owned Systems (2012-2016)
System Size (# of p eople

served) Annual Number of

Systems Impacted Average Annual Hours

per System (2012-2016) Average Annual Cost per System (2012-2016) Revenue Test 1

Ground Water Systems 500 and under 27 24 1. 14 2 $24. 16 32 0.08% Comment [E54]: [NOTE: JL COMMENT]Since costs are so low I won’t ask you to change this, but normally I would not support spreading these costs over 5 years, since they will all be incurred in the same year.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 73 of 126 501 to 3,300 110 90 1. 24 3 $27. 67 98 0.02% 3,301 to 10,000 57 36 1. 5 7 $ 39.71 43.71 0.01% Surface Water (and GWUDI) Systems 500 and under 1 1. 63 8 $ 38.06 34.71 0.0 6 7 % 501 to 3,300 20 12 1. 6 9 $ 41.99 37.74 0.02% 3,301 to 10,000 44 28 1.79 2.0 $ 51.02 45.35 0.005% 1 The “ Revenue Test ” was used to evaluate the economic impact of an information collection on small government entities (e.g., publicly

- owned systems); costs are presented as a percentage of median annual revenue in each size category.

Exhibit 1 2 11 : UCMR 3 Relative Cost Anal ysis for Small Privately -Owned Systems (2012- 2016) System Size (# of people served) Annual Number of

Systems Impacted Average Annual Hours

per System (2012
- 2016) Average Annual Cost per System (2012
- 2016) Revenue Test 1

Ground Water Systems 500 and under 73 80 1. 14 2 $24. 16 32 0.4 0 1 % 501 to 3,300 34 42 1. 24 3 $27. 67 98 0.0 2 3 % 3,301 to 10,000 8 13 1. 5 7 $ 43.71 39.74 0.004% Surface Water (and GWUDI) Systems 500 and under 2 1 1. 8 63 $ 38.06 34.71 0.1 0 1 % 501 to 3,300 4 7 1. 6 9 $ 41.99 37.74 0.0 1 2 % 3,301 to 10,000 13 8 2.0 1.79 $ 51.02 45.35 0.005% 1 The “ Revenue Test ” was used to evaluate the economic impact of an information collection on small private entities (e.g., privately

- owned systems); costs are presented as a percentage of median annual revenue in each size category.

EPA specifically solicited additional com ment on the proposed action on small systems.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 74 of 126 No comments were received.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) This rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100
million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in
any one year. Total annual costs of this final rule (across the implementation period of 2012

– 2016), for State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector, are estimated to be $ 17.45 19. 8 million, of which E PA will pay $ 4.14 4. 2 million, or approximately 24 21 %. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of Sections 202 or 205 of UMRA

. This rule is also not subject to the requirements of Section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requir ements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. As noted previously, t he Agency expects to pay for the reasonable costs of sample analysis for the small PWSs required to monitor for unregulated contaminants under this final rule, including those owned and operated by small governments. The only costs that small systems will incur are those labor costs attributed to collecting the UCMR sa mples and packing them for shipment to the laboratory (EPA will pay for shipping). These costs are m inimal. They are not significant or unique. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of UMRA Section
203.

E. Execu tive Order 13132: Federalism This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct Comment [JL55]: Sounds like the total co sts of this rule over the five year period are $100 million, of which about $80 million is born by water systems and states. Please make this clear in Section V. Comment [E56]: This information added and updated to Section V as requested.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 75 of 126 ef

fects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. The cost to State and local gover nments is minimal and the rule does not preempt State law. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local governmen ts, EPA specifically solicited comment on the proposed action from State and local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175 : Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments Subject to the Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) EPA may not issue a regulation that has tribal implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by tribal gov ernments, or EPA consults with tribal officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation and develops a tribal summary impact statement. EPA has concluded that this action will have tribal implications. However, it will neither
im

pose sub stantial direct compliance costs on tribal governments, nor preempt Tribal law. As described previously, this final rule requires monitoring by all large systems ( i.e., those serving more than 10 ,00 1 to 100,000 people) and all very large systems (i.e. , those serving greater than 100,000 people) ; 17 Tribal water systems have been identified as large systems based on*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 76 of 126 information in the SDWIS/Fed water system inventory. EPA estimates the average annual cost to each of these large systems, over the five

- yea r rule period, to be less than $ 2,512 3,105 (total cost of about $ 12,56015,500 ) per system during the five- year rule period )

. This cost is based on a labor component (associated with the collection of samples) and a non-labor component (associated with ship ping and laboratory fees) and represents less than 0.09 0.11 % of average revenue/sales for large systems

. UCMR also requires monitoring by a nationally representative sample of small systems ( i.e., those serving 10,000 or fewer people). EPA estimates that approximately one percent of small Tribal systems will be selected as part of a nationally representative sample for Assessment Monitoring , Screening Survey or Pre

- Screen Testing . EPA estimates the average annual cost to the small Tribal systems, over the five year rule period to be $32 (total cost of about $160 per system over the five

- year rule period )

. Such cost is based on the labor associated with collecting a sample and preparing it for shipping and represents 0.4% or less of average revenue/sales for small systems. All other small

- system expenses (associated with shipping and laboratory fees) are paid by EPA. EPA consulted with tribal officials early in the process of developing UCMR to permit them to have meaningful and timely input into its development. In developing the original UCMR rule, EPA held stakeholder meetings and prepared background in formation for stakeholder review. EPA sent requests for review of stakeholder documents to nearly 400 Tribes, Tribal organizations, and small systems organizations to obtain their input. Representatives from the Indian Health Service (IHS) Sanitary Deficie ncy System and Tribes w ere consulted regarding decisions on rule design, the design for the statistical selection of small systems, and potential Comment [JL57]: Do you mean large systems ge nerally or these 17 tribal systems. If the former, this may be misleading, as these are likely to be relatively small “large” systems. Comment [E58]: We h ave clarified these figures by indicating above that we have divided the systems serving more than 10,000 customers into large (10,001 to 100,000) and very large (greater than 100,000). The Tribal systems are all in the large category.

Comment [E59]: Clarified statement in parentheses.

Comment [JL60]: Is this the name of an agency/ Seems a bit strange. Comment [E61]: Yes, Indian Health Service Sanitary Defic iency System is the correct name.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 77 of 126 costs. Tribes raised issues concerning the selection of the nationally representative sample of small sy stems, particularly the manner in which Tribal systems would be considered under the sample selection process. EPA developed the sample frame for Tribal systems and Alaska Native water systems in response to those concerns. EPA worked with the Tribes, Alaska Natives, the IHS, and the States to determine how to classify each Tribal system for consideration in the statistically

- based selection of the nationally representative sample of small systems. As a result of those discussions, small PWSs located in Ind ian country in each of the EPA Regions containing Indian country were evaluated as part of a Tribal category that receives selection consideration comparable to that of small systems outside of Indian country. Thus, Tribal systems have the same probability of being selected as other water systems in the stratified selection process that weighs systems by water source and s ize class by population served. This final rule maintains the basic program design of UCMR 1 and 2, and continues to build upon the structure of this cyclical program. As part of the development of this rule, EPA held a public stakeholder meeting on April 7, 2010. This meeting was announced to the public in a Federal Register notice dated Februar y 23, 2010 (75 FR 8063 (USEPA, 2010a)). Prior to the meeting, background materials and rule development information were sent to specific stakeholders, including representatives from the IHS and the Native American Water Association. EPA specifically solic ited additional comment on the proposed action from tribal officials. EPA received n o comments.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 78 of 126 Ri sks and Safety Risks EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applyin g only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under Section 5

- 501 of the EO has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to EO 13045 because it does not establish an env ironmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks and it is not an economically significant regulation pursuant to EO 12866.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This action is not a “ si gnificant energy action ” as defined in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. None of the final UCMR requirem ents involve actions that

use a measurabl e significant amount of energy.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“ NTTAA ”), Public Law No. 104- 113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specification s, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 79 of 126 Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This rulemaking involves technical standards. EPA has decided to use the methods developed by the Agency as well as voluntary consensus standards for the analysis of UCMR 3 contaminants. The Agency conducted a search of potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards and identified two major organizations whose methods are acceptable for determinations under UCM R . These organizations are Standard Methods ( SM ) and ASTM International . For many of the parameters included i n this final action, EPA was unable to identify methods from voluntary consensus method organizations that were appropriate for the monitoring required. However, EPA identified acceptable consensus method organization standards for the analysis of total ch romium, vanadium, molybdenum, cobalt, strontium and chlorate. Therefore, EPA is approving analytical methods published by EPA, SM, and ASTM International for these analytes.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low- Income Populations. Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and perm itted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations a nd low-*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 80 of 126 inc ome populations in the United States. EPA has determined that this final rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low -income populations because it increases the level of envir onmental protection for all affected populations without having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low

- income population . By seeking to identify unregulated contaminant s that may pose health risks via drinking water from all PWSs, UCMR furthers the protection of public health for all citizens, including minority and low-income populations using public water supplies. UCMR uses a statistically

- derived set of systems for t he nationally representative sample that is population

- weighted within each system size and source water category so that any PWS within a category has an equivalent likelihood of selection. Additionally, EPA is requir ing that PWSs report all U.S. Postal S ervice Zip Codes in their service area. This additional data element will be used in the evaluation of UCMR 3 occurrence data and could potentially identify areas that have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minori ty or low -income populations.

K. Con gressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Reg ulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promul gating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA Comment [E62]: Reinstated for clarification of sentence.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 81 of 126 will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate , the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A Major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “ major rule ” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be effective [ INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER ].

VII. Public Involvement in Regulation D evelopment EPA ’ s Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water routinely engages stakeholder s in its regulatory activities for the purpose of providing early input to regulation development. When designing and developing the UCMR program in the late 1990s, EPA held meetings for developing the CCL, establishing the information requirements of the NCOD, and selecting priority contaminants for UCMR monitoring. During the initial development of the UCMR program, st akeholders including PWSs, States, industry, and other organizations attended meetings to discuss the UCMR. Seventeen other meetings were held specifically concerning UCMR development. For a description of public involvement activities related to the first
UCMR ( UCMR 1), please see the discussion in the September 17, 1999 UCMR Final Rule Federal Register at 64 FR 50556 (USEPA, 1999b ). Specific to the development of UCMR 3, a stakeholder meeting was held on April 7, 2010, in Washington, DC. There were 22 attendees, representing State agencies, laboratories, PWSs, environmental groups, and drinking water associations. The topics of presentations and*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 82 of 126 dis cussions included: status of UCMR 2 ; rationale for developing the new list of potential contaminants; analytical methods that could be used in measuring these contaminants; sampling design; procedure for determining LCMRLs; laboratory approval; and other potential revisions based on lessons learned during implementation of UCMR 1 and UCMR 2 (see USEPA, 2010 b for presentation materials, and USEPA, 2010c for meeting notes). EPA requested public comment on the proposed rule (76 FR 11713, March 3, 2011 (USEPA, 2011a) ), and establishe d a public docket , under Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OW -2009- 0090. Each set of comments received in response to this r equest was assigned an EPA Document ID (EPA

- HQ

- OW -2009-0090+unique four digit extension) and posted fo r public access on regulations.gov. To view comments, search for the docket ID on the regulations.gov homepage, then click the link to public submissions. EPA received feedback on UCMR 3 from 53 comment er s. Commenters included: private citizen s; local and State governments as well as U.S. territories; industry and industry groups; drinking water systems and organizations; and, non -governmental organizations, such as environmental and health advocacy groups . An overview of key comments received is included in Section III of this rule, and the complete report of comments and full EPA responses can be found in the docket on regulations.gov (USEPA, 2012b).

VIII. References ATSDR. 2009. Draft Toxicological Profile for Vanadium. September 2009. Available on the
Inte rnet at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp.asp?id=276&tid=50. Comment [E63]: EPA corrected minor reference text in VIII.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 83 of 126 Ando , T., S.S. Monroe, J.R. Gentsch, Q. Jin, D.C. Lewis, and R.I. Glass. 1995. Detection and differentiation of antigenically distinct small round

- structured viruses (Norwalk

- like viruses) by reverse transcription -PCR and southern hybridization. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. 33(1):64- 71. Association of State Drinking Water Administrators ( ASDWA ) . 2003. Public Health Protection Threatened by Inadequate Resources for State Drinking Water Programs–An Analysis of State Drinking Water Programs Resources, Needs, and Barriers. April 2003.
ASTM D5673 -10. 2010. St andard Test Method for Elements in Water by Inductively Coupled Plasma -Mas s Spectrometry. Available for purchase on the Internet at http://www.astm.org/Standards/D5673.htm

. ASTM D6581 -08. 2008. Standard Test Methods for Bromate, Bromide, Chlorate, and Chlorite in Drinking Water by Suppressed Ion Chromatography. Available for purchase on the
Internet at http://www.astm.org/Standards/D6581.htm

. Bergmann, H. and S. Koparal. 2005. The f ormation of chlorine d ioxide in the e lectr ochemical
t reatment of d rinking w ater for d isinfection. Electrochimica Acta

. 50:5218-5228. Bolyard, M., P. S. Fair, and D.P. Hautman. 1992. Occurrence of chlorate in hypochlorite solutions used for drinking water disinfection

. Environmental Science and Technology. 26(8):1663-1665. Bolyard, M., P. S. Fair, and D.P. Hautman. 1993. Sources of chlorate ion in US drinking water. Journal of the American Water Works Association . 85(9):81-88. Borchardt, M.A. 2008. Wisconsin Water And Health Trial for Enteric Risks (WAHTER Study) -*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 84 of 126 Part 1:Risk of Illness from Municipal Groundwater Consumption. EPA Office of Water Symposium on Groundwater -Borne Infectious Disease, Etiologic Agents and Indicators, Washington, DC, December 2-4, 2008. Czarnetzki, L.R. and J.J. Janssen. 1992. Formation of h ypochlorite, chlorate, and oxygen during NaCl e lectrolysis from a lkaline solutions at an RuO 2 /TiO 2 anode. Journal of Applied Electrochemistry . 22:315-324. De Leon, R., C. Shieh, R.S. Baric, and M.D. Sobsey. 1990. Detection of enteroviruses and hepatitis A virus in environmental samples by gene probes and polymerase chain
reaction . P. 833-835. In Advances of Water Analysis and Treatment Proceedings 1989. Water Quality Technology Conference , American Water Works Association, Denver, CO. American Water Works Association, San Diego, CA. Fairbridge, R.W. 1972. The Encyclopedia of Geochemistry and Environmental Sciences, IVA Volume. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company. Friedman, M.J., A.S. Hill, S.H Reiber, R.L. Valentine, and G.V. Korshin. 2009. Assessment of Inorganics Accumulation in Drinking Water System Scales and Sediments . Published by
W RF

. Gallagher, D.L, R.C Hoehn, and A.M. Dietrich. 1994. Sources, Occurrence, and Control of Chlorin e Dioxide By -Product Residuals in Drinking Water . Published by AwwaRF and
AWWA. Gerke, T.L., K.G. Scheckel, and J.B. Maynard. 2010. Speciation and distribution of vanadium in drinking water iron pipe corrosion by-products. Science of the Total Environment

.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 85 of 126 408(23):5845-5853. Gibbons, C.D., R.A. Rodriguez., L. Tallon, and M.D. Sobsey . 2010. Evaluation of positively charged alumina nanofibre cartridge filters for the primary concentration of noroviruses, adenoviruses and male- specific coliphages from seawater

. Journal of Applied Microbiology. 109(2):635-641. Gordon, G., B. Slootmaekers, S. Tachiyashiki, and D.W. Wood III. 1990. Minimizing chlorite ion and chlorate ion in water treated with chlorine dioxide. Journal of the American Water Works Association . 82(4):160-165. Gordon, G. and S. Tachiyashiki. 1991. Kinetics and mechanism of formation of chlorate ion from the hypochlorous acid/chlorite ion reaction at pH 6 -10. Environmental Science and Technology. 25(3):468-474. Gordon, G., L.C. Adam, B.P. Bubnis, B. Hoyt, A.J. Gillette, and A. Wilczak. 1993. Controlling the formation of chlorate ion in liquid hypochlorite feedstocks. Journal of the American Water Works Association . 85(9):89-97. Gordon, G., L.C. Adam, and B.P. Bubnis. 1995. Minimizing Chlorate Ion Forma tion in Drinking Water When Hypochlorite Ion is the Chlorinating Agent . Published by AwwaRF and
AWWA. Gordon, G., L.C. Adam, B.P. Bubnis, C. Kuo, R.S. Cushing, and R.H. Sakaji. 1997. Predicting liquid bleach decomposition. Journal of the American Water Works Association. 89(4):142-149. Howard, K.L. and G.L. Boyer. 2007. Quantitative analysis of cyanobacterial toxins by matrix-*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 86 of 126 assisted laser desorption ionization mass spectrometry. Analytical Chemistry

. 79(15):5980-5986. Hunt, R.J., M.A. Borchardt, K.D. Richards, and S.K. Spencer. 2010. Assessment of sewer source contamination of drinking water wells using tracers and human enteric viruses. Environmental Science and Technology. 44(20):7956-7963. Jothikumar, N., J.A. Lowther, K. Henshilwood, D.N. Lees, V.R. Hill, and J. Vinje ́. 2005. Rapid and sensitive detection of noroviruses by using TaqMan-based one- step reverse transcription -PCR assays and application to naturally contaminated shellfish samples. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 71(4):1870-1875. Karim, M.R., E.R. Rhodes, N. Brinkman, L. Wymer, and G.S. Fout. 2009. New electropositive filter for concentrating enteroviruses and noroviruses from large volumes of water. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 75(8):2393–2399. Kolodziej, E.P., T. Harter, and D.L. Sedlak. 2004. Dairy wastewater, aquaculture, and spawning fish as sources of steroid hormones in the aquatic environment. Environmental Science and Technology . 38:6377-6384. Kolodziej, E.P. and D.L. Sedlak. 2007. Ran geland grazing as a source of steroid hormones to surface waters. Environmental Science and Technology . 41:3514-3520. Kolpin, D.W., E.T. Furlong, M.T. Meyer, E.M. Thurman, S.D. Zaugg, L.B. Barber, and H.T. Buxton. 2002. Pharmaceuticals, hormones, and other organic wastewater contaminants in U.S. streams, 1999-2000 : A national reconnaissance. Environmental Science and Technology . 36:1202-1211.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 87 of 126 La mbertini, E., S.K. Spencer, P.D. Bertz, F.J. Loge, B.A. Kieke, and M.A. Borchardt. 2008. Concentration of enteroviruses, adenoviruses, and noroviruses from drinking water by use of glass wool filters. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 74(10):2990-2996. Mash, H., K. Schenck, and L. Rosenblum. 2010. Hypochlorite oxidation of select androgenic steroids. Water Resea rch . 44:1950-1960. Monpoeho, S., A. Dehée, B. Mignotte, L. Schwartzbrod, V. Marechal, J.C. Nicolas, S. Billaudel, and V. Ferré. 2000. Quantification of enterovirus RNA in sludge samples by single tube real

- time RT

- PCR. BioTechniques. 29:88-95. Oehrle, S.A., B. Southwell, and J. Westrick. 2010. Detection of various freshwater cyanobacterial toxins using ultra-performance liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry. Toxicon . 55:965-972. Rice, R.G. and M. Gomez-Taylor. 1986. Occurrence of by-products of strong oxidants reacting with drinking water contaminants -scope of the problem. Environmental Health Perspectives . 69:31-44. Siddiqui, M.S. 1996. Chlorine-o zone i nteractions: Formation of chlorate. Water Research

. 30(8):2160-2170. Snyder, S.A., B.D. Stanford, A.N. Pisarenko, G. Gordon, and M. Asami. 2009. Hypochlorite – An Assessment of Factors that Influence the Formation of Perchlorate and Other
Contaminants . Jointly funded by AWWA and WRF. Available on the Internet at http://www.awwa.org/files/GovtPublicAffairs/PDF/HypochloriteAssess.pdf

. SM 3125. 2005. Metals by Inductively Coupled Plasma/Mass Spectrometry

. Standard Methods*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 88 of 126 for the Examination of Water and & Wastewater , 21 st edition. American Public Health Association, 800 I Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001-3710. SM 4110D. 2005. Determination of Anions by Ion Chromatography, Part D, IC Ion Chromatographic Determination of Oxyhalides and Bromide. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and & Wastewater , 21 st edition. American Public Health Association, 800 I Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001-3710. Stanford, B.D., A.B. Pisarenko, S.A. Snyder, and G. Gordon. 2011. Perchlorate, bromate, and ch lorate in hypochlorite solutions: Guidelines for utilities. Journal of the American Water Works Association . 103(6):71-83. USEPA. 1994. Method 200.8 - Determination of Trace Elements in Waters and Wastes by Inductively Coupled Plasma- Mass Spectrometry. Revision 5.4. Available on the Internet
at https://www.nemi.gov/

. USEPA. 1995. Handbook for Preparing Office of Research and Development Reports , Third Edition. EPA 600-K-95-002. August 1995. USEPA. 1996. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Monitoring Requirements for Public Drinking Water Supplies: Cryptosporidium, Giardia, Viruses, Disinfection Byproducts, Water Treatment Plant Data and Other Information Requirements. Federal
Re gister. Vol. 61, No. 94, p. 24353, May 14, 1996. USEPA. 1997. Method 300.1 - Determination of Inorganic Anions in Drinking Water by Ion Chromatography. Revision 1.0. Available on the Internet at http://water.epa.gov/scitech/drinkingwater/labcert/analyticalmethods_ogwdw.cfm

.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 89 of 126 US EPA. 1998a. 40 CFR Parts 141 and 142 National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Consumer Confidence; Proposed Rule. Federal Register . Vol. 63, No. 30, p. 7606, February 13, 1998. USEPA. 1998b. 40 CFR Parts 141 and 142 National Primary Drinking Water Regulation: Consumer Confidence Reports; Final Rule. Federal Register . Vol. 63, No. 160, p. 44512, August 19, 1998.
USEPA. 1999a. Alternative Disinfectants and Oxidants Guidance Manual . Office of Water. EPA 815-R-99-014. April 1999. Available on the Internet at http:/ /water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/mdbp/mdbptg.cfm

. USEPA. 1999b . Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation for Public Water Systems; Final Rule. Federal Register. Vol. 64, No. 180, p. 50556, September 17, 1999.
USEPA. 2001. Statistical Design and Sample Selection for the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999). EPA 815-R-01-004. August 2001. USEPA. 2003. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule; National Primary and Secondary Drinking Water Regulations: Approval of Analytical Methods for Chemical Contaminants. Federal Register. Vol. 68, No. 159, p. 49547, August 18, 2003.
USEPA. 2006. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Peer Review Handbook, Third Edition

. EPA 100-B-06-002. Available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/peerreview/pdfs/peer_review_handbook_2006.pdf

.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 90 of 126 US EPA. 2007. Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (U CMR) for Public Water Systems Revisions. Federal Register . Vol. 72, No. 2, p. 367, January 4, 2007.
USEPA. 2008. Me thod 522 - Determination of 1,4-Dioxane in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction (SPE) and Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) with Selected Ion Monitoring (SIM). Version 1.0, September 2008. EPA EPA / 600

- - / R-08

- - / 101. Available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/nerlcwww/ordmeth.htm

. USEPA. 2009a. Method 524.3 - Measurement of Purgeable Organic Compounds in Water by Capillary Column Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry. Version 1.0, June 2009.
EPA 815-B-09-009. Available on the Internet at http://water.epa.gov/scitech/drinkingwater/labcert/analyticalmethods_ogwdw.cfm

. USEPA. 2009b. Me thod 537 - Determination of Selected Perfluorinated Alkyl Acids in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Liquid Chromatography/Tandem Mass Spectrom etry (LC/MS/MS). Version 1.1, September 2009. EPA EPA / 600

- - / R-08

- - / 092. Available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/nerlcwww/ordmeth.htm

. USEPA. 2010a . Stakeholder Meeting Regarding Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation. Federal Register. Vol. 75, No. 35, p. 8063, February 23, 2010. USEPA. 2010b. Stakeholder Meeting Regarding Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation – Presentation Materials. April 7, 2010.
USEPA. 2010c. Stakeholder Meeting Regarding Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation – Meeting Notes. April 2010. USEPA. 2010d. The Analysis of Regulated Contaminant Occurrence Data from Public Water*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 91 of 126 Sys tems in Support of the Second Six-Year Review of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations

. EPA 815-B-09-006. September 2010. Available on the Internet at http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/regulatingcontaminants/sixyearreview/second_re view/upload/6Yr2OccurrenceReport_Revised_September2010.pdf

. USEPA. 2010e. Method 539 - Determination of Hormones in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction (SPE) and Liquid Chromatography Electrospray Ionization Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC

- ESI

- MS/MS) . Version 1.0, November 2010. EPA 815-B-10-001. Available on the Internet at http://water.epa.gov/scitech/drinkingwater/labcert/analyticalmethods_ogwdw.cfm

. USEPA. 2010f. Technical Basis for the Lowest Concentration Minimum Reporting Level (L CMRL) Calculator . EPA 815-R-11-001. December 2010.
USEPA . 2011a . Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation ( UCMR 3 ) for Public Water Systems; Proposed Rule. Federal Register. Vol. 76, No. 42, p. 11713, March 3, 2011. USEPA. 2011b. EPA Method 218.7 - Determination of Dissolved Hexavalent Chromium in Drinking Water by Ion Chromatography

. with Post- Column Derivatization and UV

Visible Spectroscopic Detection

. Version 1.0, November 2011 . EPA 600 600 815 -R-11-
0XX 0XX 005

. Available on the Intern et at http://water.epa.gov/scitech/drinkingwater/labcert/analyticalmethods_ogwdw.cfm

. USEPA. 2012a. Memo to file: Summary of Lowest Concentration Minimum Reportin g Level (LCMRL) Results for UCMR 3. January Information Collection Request for the*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 92 of 126 Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (UCMR 3) . March 2012. USEPA. 2012b. Response to Comments Document for the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (UCMR 3 ). EPA 815-R-11-004. January 2012.
USEPA. 2012c. UCMR 3 Contaminants – Information Compendium. EPA 815 -B-11-001. January 2012. USEPA. 2012d. UCMR 3 Laboratory Approval Requirements and Information Document

. Version 2.0. EPA 815-R-11-003. January 2012. von Gunten, U. 2003. Ozonation of drinking water: Part II. Disinfection and by-product formation in presence of bromide, iodide or chlorine. Water Research . 37:1469-1487. World Health Organization (WHO). 2005. Chlorite and Chlorate in Drinking-water, Backg round Document for Development of WHO Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality , WHO/SDE/WSH/05.08/86.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 141 Environmental protection, Chemicals, Incorporation by reference, Indians-la nds, Intergovernmental relations, Radiation protection, Reporting and record keeping requirements, Water supply , incorporation by reference. Comment [E64]: EPA added incorporation by reference to the List of Subjects .*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 93 of 126 [ Title: Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation ( UCMR 3 ) for Public Water Systems ; page 81 of 108]

40 CFR Part 142 Environmental protection, Administrative practices and procedures, Chemicals, Indian lands, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water supply.

Dated:

Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, T itle 40, cha pter 1 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 141 - NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS

1. The a uthority citation for Part 141 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-4,*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 94 of 126 300j- 9, and 300j

- 11.

Subpart C

– Monitoring and Analytical Requirements

2. Section 141.23 is amended in the table to paragraph (k)(1) by revising entries 18, 19, and 20;

and by rem oving footnote 23. The revisions read as follows:

§141.23 Inorganic chemical sampling and analytical requirements.

* * * * * (k) Inorganic analysis:
* * * * *

Contaminant Methodology 13 EPA Method ASTM 3 SM 4 (18 th
, 19 th ed.) SM 4 (20 th ed.) SM Online 22 Other * * * * * * * 18. Nitrate Ion Chromatography 300.0 6 300.1 19 D4327

- 97, 03 4110 B 4110 B 4110 B

00 B

- 1011 8
Automated Cadmium Reduction 353.2 6 D3867

- 90 A 4500

- NO 3 - F 4500

- NO 3 - F 4500

- NO 3 - F00 Ion Selective Electrode ......................... .................. 4500

- NO 3 - D 4500

- NO 3 - D 4500

- NO 3 - D00 601 7

Manual Cadmium Reduction ......................... D3867

- 90 B 4500

- NO 3 - E 4500

- NO 3 - E 4500

- NO 3 - E00*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 95 of 126 Co ntaminant Methodology 13 EPA Method ASTM 3 SM 4 (18 th
, 19 th ed.) SM 4 (20 th ed.) SM Online 22 Other Capillary Ion Electrophoresis ......................... D6508

- 00.

................. ................. .............. 19. Nitrite Ion Chromatography 300.0 6 300.1 19 D4327

- 97, 03 4110 B.... 4110 B.... 4110 B

00 B

- 1011 8
Automated Cadmium Reduction 353.2 6 D3867

- 90 A 4500

- NO 3 - F 4500

- NO 3 - F 4500

- NO 3 - F00 Manual Cadmium Reduction ......................... D3867

- 90 B 4500

- NO 3 - E 4500

- NO 3 - E 4500

- NO 3 - E00 Spectrophotometric

......................... .................. 4500

- NO 2 - B 4500

- NO 2 - B 4500

- NO 2 - B00 Capillary Ion Electrophoresis ......................... D6508

- 00

................. ................. ............... 20. Ortho

phosphate Colorimetric, Automated, Ascorbic Acid 365.1 6

.................. 4500

- P F 4500

- P F

...............
Colorimetric, ascorbic acid, single reagent ......................... D515

- 88 A 4500

- P E 4500

- P E

...............

Colorimetric Phosphomolybdate;Automatedsegmented flow; Automated Discrete .........................

.........................

......................... ..................

..................

.................. .................

.................

................. .................

.................

................. ...............

...............

............... I

- 1601

- 85 5
I-2601- 90 5 I-2598- 85 5 Ion Chromatography 300.0 6 300.1 19 D4327

- 97, 03 4110 B 4110 B 4110 B

00 Capillary Ion Electrophoresis ......................... D6508

- 00

................. ................. ............... * * * * * * *

* * * * *

3 Annual Book of ASTM Standards , ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive,*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 96 of 126 Wes t Conshohocken, PA 19428 , http://www.astm.org

. 3a Annual Book of ASTM Standards 1994, Vols. 11.01 and 11.02.

3b Annual Book of ASTM Standards 1996, Vols. 11.01 and 11.02.

3c Annual Book of ASTM Standards 1999, Vols. 11.01 and 11.02.

3 d Annual Book of ASTM Standards 2003, Vols. 11.01 and 11.02. ASTM International; any year containing the cited version of the method may be used. The previous versions of D1688

- 95A, D1688

- 95C (copper), D3559

- 95D (lead), D1293

- 95 (pH), D1125

- 91A (conductivity) and D859

- 94 (silica) are also approved. These previous ve rsions D1688

- 90A, C; D3559

- 90D, D1293

- 84, D1125

- 91A and D859

- 88, respectively are located in the Annual Book of ASTM Standards , 1994, Vol. 11.01. Copies may be obtained from ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428.

4 Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater , American Public Health Association, 800 I Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001-3710.

4a Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater , 18 th edition (1992).

4b Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater , 19 th edition (1995).

4c Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater , 20 th edition (1998). The following methods from this edition cannot be used: 3111 B, 3111 D, 3113 B, and
3114 B.
18 th edition (1992), 19 th edition (1995) or 20 th edition (1998). American Public Health*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 97 of 126 Association, 800 I Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001

- 3710. The cited methods published in any of these three editions may be used, except that the versions of 3111 B, 3111 D, 3113 B and 3114 B in the 20 th edition may not be used.

5 U.S. Geological Survey, Federal Center, Box 25286, Denver, CO 80225-0425.

5a Methods for Analysis by the U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory – Determination of Inorganic and Organic Constituents in Water and Fluvial Sediment, Open File Report 93-125, 1993.

5b Techniques of Water Resources Investigation of the U.S. Geological Survey, Book 5, Chapter A -1, 3 rd edition, 1989 Method I

- 2601

- 90, Methods for Analysis by the U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory

– Determination of Inorganic and Organic Constituents in Water and Fluvial Sediment, Open File Report 93

- 125, 1993; For Methods I

- 1030

- 85; I

- 1601

- 85; I

1700

- 85; I

- 2598

- 85; I

- 2700

- 85; and I

- 3300

- 85. See Techniques of Water Resources Investigation of the U.S. Geological Survey, Book 5, Chapter A

- 1, 3 rd edition, 1989; Available from Information Se rvices, U.S. Geological Survey, Federal Center, Box 25286, Denver, CO 80225

- 0425.

6 “ Methods for the Determination of Inorganic Substances in Environmental Samples, ” EPA/600/R-93/100, August 1993. Available at NTIS, PB94

- 120821. Available as*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 98 of 126 Technical Report PB94

- 120821 at National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5301 Shawnee Road, Alexandria, VA 22312. http://www.ntis.gov

.

7 The procedure shall be done in accordance with the Technical Bulletin 601 “Standard Method of Test for Nitrate in Drinking Water, ” July 1994, PN 221890-001, Analytical Technology, Inc. Copies may be obtained from ATI Orion, 529 Main Street, Boston, MA 02129.

8 Method B-1011. “ Waters Test Method for Determination of Nitrite/Nitrate in Wat er Using Single Column Ion Chromatography,” August, 1987. Copies may be obtained from Waters Corporation, Technical Services Division, 34 Maple Street, Milford, MA 01757, Telephone: 508/482-2963, Fax: 508/482-4056.

* * * * *

13 Because MDLs reported in E PA Methods 200.7 and 200.9 were determined using a 2x preconcentration step during sample digestion, MDLs determined when samples are analyzed by direct analysis ( i.e. , no sample digestion) will be higher. For direct analysis of cadmium and arsenic by Meth od 200.7, and arsenic by Method 3120 B, sample preconcentration using pneumatic nebulization may be required to achieve lower detection limits. Preconcentration may also be required for direct analysis of antimony,*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 99 of 126 le ad, and thallium by Method 200.9; antimony and lead by Method 3113 B; and lead by Method D3559-90D, unless multiple in- furnace depositions are made.

* * * * *

19 “Methods for the Determination of Organic and Inorganic Compounds in Drinking Water, ” Vol. 1, EPA 815-R-00-014, August 2000. Availa ble at NTIS, PB2000

- 106981. Available as Technical Report PB2000

- 106981 at National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5301 Shawnee Road, Alexandria, VA 22312. http://www.ntis.gov.

* * * * *

22 Standard Methods Online , American Public Health Association, 800 I Street, NW, Washington, DC 2001, available at http://www.standardmethods.org

. are available at http://www.standardmethods.org

. The year in which each method was approved by the Standard Methods Committee is designated by the last two digits in the method number. The methods listed are the only online versions that may be used.

3. S ection 141.35 is amended as follows:

a. In paragraph ( a) by r evising the third sentence,*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 100 of 126 b. By revising paragraph (b) introductory text,

c. By revising paragraph (b)(1) , d. In paragraph (b)(2) by revising the first sentence,

e. By revising paragraph (c)(1) , f. By revising paragraph (c )( 2),
g. I n paragraph (c)(3)(i) by remov ing “May 4, 2007” and add ing in its place, “ June August 1, 2012,” h. In paragraph (c)(3)( ii ) by adding a new second and third sentence, i. In paragraph (c)(4) by removing “ June 4, 2007” and adding in its place, “[ INSERT DATE 150 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN FEDERAL REGISTER ],” j. By revising paragraph (c)(5)(i ), k. By revising paragraph (c)(6) introductory text, l. By revising paragraph (c)(6)(ii) ,

m. By revising paragraph (d)(1), n. By revising paragraph ( d)(2) , and o. In the table to paragraph ( e) by revising entry 6.

The revisions and additions read as follows: §141. 35 Reporting for unregulated contaminant monitoring results. (a) * * * For the purposes of this section, PWS “population served” is the retail*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 101 of 126 po pu lation served directly by the PWS as reported to the Federal Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS/Fed) ; wholesale or consecutive populations are not included. * * *

(b) Reporting by all systems . You must meet the reporting requirements of this paragraph if you meet the applicability criteria in §141.40 (a )(1) and (2).
* * * * *

(1) Where to submit UCMR reporting requirement information. Some of your reporting requirements are to be fulfilled electronically and others by mail. Information that mu st be submitted using EPA’s electronic data reporting system must be submitted through: http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/ucmr/ucmr3/reporting.cfm

. Documentation that is required to be mailed can be submitted either: To UCMR Sampling Coordinator, USEPA, Technical Support Center, 26 West Martin Luther King Drive (MS 140), Cincinnati, OH 45268; or by email at UCMR_Sampling_Coordinator@epa.gov . In addition, you must notify the public of the availability of unregulated contaminant monitoring data as provided in Subpart Q (Public Notification) of this part (40 CFR 141.207). Community Water Systems that detect unregulated contaminants under this monitoring m ust also address such detections as part of their Consumer Confidence Reports, as provided in Subpart O of this part (40 CFR 141.151).*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 102 of 126 (2) * * * If you have received a letter from EPA concerning your required monitoring and your system does not meet the ap plicability criteria for UCMR established in §141.40(a)(1) or (2), or if a change occurs at your system that may affect your requirements under UCMR as defined in §141.40(a)(3) through (5), you must mail or

e mail a letter to EPA, as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. * * *
* * * * *

(c ) * * *
(1) Contact and zip code information. You must provide contact information by October 1, 2012, and provide updates within 30 days if this information changes. The contact information must be submitted using EPA’ s electronic data reporting system, as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, and include the name, affiliation, mailing address, phone number, and e mail address for your PWS Technical Contact and your PWS Official. In addition, as a one -time reporting requirement, you must report the U.S. P ostal Service Z ip C ode (s) for all areas being served water by your PWS.
(2) Sampling location and inventory information. You must provide your sampling location and inventory information by October 1, 2012, using EPA’ s electronic data reporting system. You must submit , verify or update the following information for each sampling l ocation, or for each approved representative sampling location (as specified in paragraph (c)(3) of this section regarding representative sampling locations): PWS*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 103 of 126 ide ntification (PWSID) code; PWS facility identification code; water source type, sampling po int identification code; and sampling point type code; (as defined in Table 1 of

paragraph (e) of this section). If this information changes, you must report updates, including new sources and sampling locations that are put in use before or during the
PWS ’ UCMR sampling period, to EPA’s electronic data reporting system within 30 days of the change.

* * * * * (3) * * * (ii) * * * The proposed well must be representative of the highe st annual volume producing and mo st consistently active well s in the representative array. If that representative well is not in use at the scheduled sampling time, you must select and sample an alternative representative well . * * *

* * * * * (5 ) * * *

( i) General rescheduling notification requirements. Large systems may change their Assessment Monitoring (List 1) or Screening Survey (List 2) schedule s up to October 1, 2012, using EPA’ s electronic data reporting system, as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. After these dates have passed, if your PWS cannot sample according to your assigned sampling schedule (e.g., because of budget constraints, or if a sampling location will be closed during the scheduled month of monitoring), you must mail or e mail a letter*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 104 of 126 to E PA, as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, prior to the scheduled sampling date. You must include an explanation of why the samples cannot be taken acc ording to the assigned schedule, and you must provide the alternati ve schedule you are requesting. You are subject to your assigned UCMR sampling schedule or the schedule that you revised on or before October 1, 2012, unless and until you receive a letter from EPA specifying a new schedule.

* * * * * (6) Reporting monitoring results. For each sample, you must report all data elements specified in Table 1 of paragraph (e) of this section, using EPA’ s electronic data reporting system. You also must report any cha nges , relative to what is currently posted, made to data elements 1 through 6 to EPA, in writing, explaining the nature and purpose of the proposed change, as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
* * * * *
(ii) Reporting schedule. Yo u must ensure that your laboratory posts the data to EPA ’s electronic data reporting system within 90 120 days from the sample collection date (sample collection must occur as specified in §141.40(a)(4)). You have 6 0 3 0 days from when the laboratory posts the data in EPA ’ s electronic data reporting system to review, approve, and submit the data to the State and EPA, at the Web address specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. If you do not electronically approve and submit the laboratory data to EPA within 30 60 d ays of the laboratory ’ s posting data to EPA ’ s Comment [JL66]: See earlier comment. Suggest going back to 60.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 105 of 126 electronic reporting system, the data will be considered approved by you and available for State and EPA review.

* * * * * (d) * * *
(1) Contact and zip code information. EPA will send you a notice requesting contact information for key individuals at your system, including name, affiliation, maili ng address, phone number and email address. These individuals include your PWS Technical Contact and your PWS Official. You are required to provide this contact infor mation within 90 days of receiving the notice from EPA as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. If this contact information changes, you also must provide updates within 30 days of the change, as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. In a ddition,

as a one -time reporting requirement, you must report the U.S. P ostal Service Z ip C ode (s) for all areas being served water by your PWS.
(2) Reporting sampling information . You must record all data elements listed in Table 1 of paragraph (e) of this section on each sample form and sample bottle provided to you by the UCMR Sampling Coordinator. You must send this information as specified in the instructions of your sampling kit, which will include the due date and return address. You
must report any changes made in data elements 1 through 6 by mailing or emailing an explanation of the nature and purpose of the proposed change to EPA, as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 106 of 126 (e ) * * *

Table 1. Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Reporting Requi rements
Data Element Definition * * * * * * * 6. Disinfectant Type All of the disinfectants that have been added to the water being sampled. To be reported by systems for each sampling point, with possible choices being: CLGA= G aseous chlorine C LOF = Offsite G enerated Hypochlorite (stored as a liquid form) CLON = Onsite G enerated Hypochlorite (no storage) CAG C = Chloramine (formed from gaseous chlorine) CAOF = Chloramine (formed from off site hypochlorite) CAON = Chloramine (formed from on site hypochlo rite) CLD O = Chlorine dioxide O ZON = Ozone ULVL = Ultraviolet L ight OTH D = All Other Types of D isinfectant NOD U = No Disinfectant U sed * * * * * * *

Subpart E

– Special Regulations, Including Monitoring Regulations and Prohibition on
Lead Use

4. Section 141.40 is amended as follows: a. By revising paragraph ( a) introductory text, b. By revising paragraph ( a) (1), c. By revising paragraph (a)(2)(i) introductory text, d. By revising the first sentence of paragraph (a)(2)(i)(A), e. By revising paragraph (a)(2)(ii) introductory text,*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 107 of 126 f. B y revising paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(A) , g. By revising paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(C), h. By revising paragraph (a)(3), i. In paragraph (a)(4)(i) introductory text by remov ing “August 2, 2007” and adding in its place, “Octo ber 1, 2012”, j. By revising paragraph ( a)(4) (i) (B), k. By revising paragraph ( a)(4)(i)(C) , l. In paragraph ( a)(4)(i)(D) by removing the last sentence , m. By revising paragraph ( a)(4)(ii)(G) , n. I n paragraph (a)(5)(ii) b y remov ing “April 4, 2007” and add in g in its place, “August 1,
2012” “ [ INSERT DATE 90 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER ] ” and by revising the last sentence , o. By revising paragraph ( a)(5)(iii) introductory text, p. By revising paragraph (a)(5)(iii) (A)( 1 ), q. By revising paragraph (a)(5)(iv), and r. By revising paragraph (a)(5)(vi). s. By adding paragraph (c).

The revisions read as follows: §141.40 Monitoring requirements for unregulated contaminants. Comment [E67]: EPA updated the Incorporation by Reference format per guidance from OFR for the new paragraph.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 108 of 126 ( a) General applicability. This section specifies the monitoring and quality control requirements that must be followed if you own or operate a public water system (PWS) that is subject to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (UCMR), as specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section. In addition, th is section specifies the UCMR requirements for State and Tribal participation. For the purposes of this section, PWS “population served,” “State,” “ PWS Official,” “PWS Technical Contact,” and “finished water” apply as defined in §141.35(a). The determination of whether a PWS is required to monitor under this rule is based on the type of system (e.g., community water system, non

- transient non -community water system, etc.), and its retail population, as indicated by SDWIS/Fed on December 31, 2010. (1) Applic ability to transient non-community systems. If you own or operate a transient

non -community water system, and you are notified by your State or EPA, you must permit the State, EPA or their contractors to collect samples for the contaminants specified on List 3 of Table 1, in paragraph (a)(3) of this section. (2) * * * (i) Large systems . If you own or operate a retail PWS (other than a transient noncommunity system) that serves more than 10,000 people, you must monitor according to the specifications in thi s paragraph (a)(2)(i). If you believe that your applicability status is different than EPA has specified in the notification letter that you received, or if you are subject to UCMR requirements and you have not been notified by either EPA or your State, yo u must report to EPA, as specified in §141.35(b)(2) or (c)(4).*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 109 of 126 (A) As sessment Monitoring. You must monitor for the unregulated contaminants on List 1 and Total Chromium per Table 1, UCMR Contaminant List, in paragraph (a)(3) of this section. * * *
* * * * * (ii) Small systems . Smal l PWSs, as defined in this paragraph, will not be selected to monitor for any more than one of the three monitoring lists provided in Table 1, UCMR Contaminant List, in paragraph (a)(3) of this section. EPA will provide samp le containers, provide pre- paid air bills for shipping the sampling materials, conduct the laboratory analysis, and report and review monitoring results for all small systems selected to conduct monitoring under paragraphs (a)(2)(ii)(A) through (C) of this section. If you own or operate a PWS that serves 10,000 or fewer people you must monitor as follows: (A) Assessment Monitoring. You must monitor for the unregulated contaminants on List 1 and To tal Chromium per Table 1, in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, if you are notified by your State or EPA that you are part of the State Monitoring Plan for Assessment Monitoring.
* * * * * (C) Pre -Screen Testing. You m ust allow EPA or its representative to collect samples to support monitor ing for the unregulated contaminants on List 3 of Table 1, in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, if you are notified by your State or EPA that you are part of the State Monitoring plan for Pre -Screen Testing. In addition, you must permit the collection Comment [JL68]: Do you mean two? Comment [E69]: Thi s comment no longer applies since we moved hormones to Screening Survey.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 110 of 126 of

samp les as necessary for EPA to perform analysis for total coliform s, E. coli , bacteriophage, Enterococci and aerobic spores. (3) Analytes to be monitored . Lists 1, 2, and 3 of unregulated contaminants and total chromium monitoring are provided in the followi ng table:

Table 1 . UCMR Contaminant List

List 1: Assessment Monitoring Chemical Contaminants 1

- Contaminant 2

- CAS Registry Number 3

- Analytical Methods a 4

- Minimum Reporting Level b 5

- Sampling Location c 6

- Period During Which Monitoring to be Completed
Hormones 17

- β

- estradiol 50

- 28

- 2 EPA 539 d 0.0004 μg/L EPTDS 1/1/2013

- 12/31/2015 17

- α - ethynylestradiol 57

- 63

- 6 EPA 539 d 0.0009 μg/L EPTDS 1/1/2013

- 12/31/2015 estriol 50

- 27

- 1 EPA 539 d 0.0008 μg/L EPTDS 1/1/2013

- 12/31/2015

e quilin 474

- 86

- 2 EPA 539 d 0.004 μg/L EPTDS 1/1/2013

- 12/31/2015

e strone 53

- 16

- 7 EPA 539 d 0.002 μg/L EPTDS 1/1/2013

- 12/31/2015
t estosterone 58

- 22

- 0 EPA 539 d 0.0001 μg/L EPTDS 1/1/2013

- 12/31/2015 4

- androstene

- 3,17

- dione 63

- 05

- 8 EPA 539 d 0.0003 μg/L EPTDS 1/1/2013

- 12/31/2015 Volatile Organic Compounds 1,2,3

- trichloropropane 96

- 18

- 4 EPA 524.3 e 0.03 μg/L EPTDS 1/1/2013

- 12/31/2015 1,3

- butadiene 106

- 99

- 0 EPA 524.3 e 0.1 μg/L EPTDS 1/1/2013

- 12/31/2015

c hloromethane 74

- 87

- 3 EPA 524.3 e 0.2 μg/L EPTDS 1/1/2013

- 12/31/2015 1,1

- dichloroethane 75

- 34 -3 EPA 524.3 e 0.03 μg/L EPTDS 1/1/2013 - 12/31/2015

n - propylbenzene 103

- 65

- 1 EPA 524.3 e 0.03 μg/L EPTDS 1/1/2013

- 12/31/2015 b romomethane 74

- 83 -9 EPA 524.3 e 0.2 μg/L EPTDS 1/1/2013 - 12/31/2015*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 111 of 126 chlorodifluoromethane (HCFC

22) 75

- 45

- 6 EPA 524.3 e 0.08 μg/L EPTDS 1/1/2013

- 12/31/2015
bromochloromethane ( H alon 1011) 74

- 97

- 5 EPA 524.3 e 0.06 μg/L EPTDS 1/1/2013

- 12/31/2015
Synthetic Organic Compound 1,4

- dioxane 123

- 91

- 1 EPA 522 f 0.07 μg/L EPTDS 1/1/2013

- 12/31/2015 Metals

v anadium 7440

- 62

- 2 EPA 200.8 ASTM D5673

- 10 SM 3125 g 0.2 μg/L EPTDS and DSMRT 1/1/2013

- 12/31/2015

m olybdenum 7439

- 98 -7 EPA 200.8 ASTM D5673

- 10 SM 3125 g 1. μg/L EPTDS and DSMRT 1/1/2013 - 12/31/2015

c obalt 7440

- 48

- 4 EPA 200.8 ASTM D5673

- 10 SM 3125 g 1. μg/L EPTDS and DSMRT 1/1/2013

- 12/31/2015

s trontium 7440

- 24 -6 EPA 200.8 ASTM D5673

- 10 SM 3125 g 0.3 μg/L EPTDS and DSMRT 1/1/2013 - 12/31/2015

Chromium
- 6 chromium

- 6 k 6 d 18540

- 29

- 9 EPA 218.7 h 0.03 μg/L EPTDS and DSMRT 1/1/2013

- 12/31/2015
Oxyhalide Anion

c hlorate 14866

- 68

- 3 EPA 300.1 ASTM D 6581

- 08 SM 4110D i 20 μg/L EPTDS and DSMRT 1/1/2013

- 12/31/2015

Perfluorinated Compounds perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) 1763

- 23

- 1 EPA 537 j 0.04 μg/L EPTDS 1/1/2013

- 12/31/2015
perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) 335

- 67 -1 EPA 537 j 0.02 μg/L EPTDS 1/1/2013 - 12/31/2015*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 112 of 126 List 2: Screening Survey 1

- Contaminant 2

- CAS Registry Number 3

- Analytical Methods a 4

- Minimum Reporting Level b 5

- Sampling Location c 6

- Period During Which Monitoring to be Completed Hormone s Reserved Reserved Reserved Reserved Reserved Reserved
17

- β

- estradiol 50

- 28 -2 EPA 539 0.0004 μg/L EPTDS 1/1/2013 - 12/31/2015
17

- α - ethynylestradiol 57

- 63

- 6 EPA 539 0.0009 μg/L EPTDS 1/1/2013

- 12/31/2015 estriol 50

- 27

- 1 EPA 539 0.0008 μg/L EPTDS 1/1/2013

- 12/31/2015

e quilin 474

- 86

- 2 EPA 539 0.004 μg/L EPTDS 1/1/2013

- 12/31/2015

e strone 53

- 16

- 7 EPA 539 0.002 μg/L EPTDS 1/1/2013

- 12/31/2015
t estosterone 58

- 22 -0 EPA 539 0.0001 μg/L EPTDS 1/1/2013 - 12/31/2015
4

- androstene

- 3,17

- dione 63

- 05

- 8 EPA 539 0.0003 μg/L EPTDS 1/1/2013

- 12/31/2015

List 3: Pre
- Screen Testing e Microbiological Contaminants 1- C ontaminant 2

- CAS Registry Number 3- Analytical Methods a 4- Minimum Reporting Level b 5- Sampling Location c 6- Period During Which Monitoring to be Completed

e nteroviruses N/A N/A N/A EPTDS 1/1/2013

- 12/31/2015

n oroviruses N/A N/A N/A EPTDS 1/1/2013

- 12/31/2015 perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) 375

- 95

- 1 EPA 537 j 0.02 μg/L EPTDS 1/1/2013

- 12/31/2015 perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS) 355

- 46

- 4 EPA 537 j 0.03 μg/L EPTDS 1/1/2013

- 12/31/2015
perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) 375

- 85

- 9 EPA 537 j 0.01 μg/L EPTDS 1/1/2013

- 12/31/2015
perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) 375

- 73

- 5 EPA 537 j 0.09 μg/L EPTDS 1/1/2013

- 12/31/2015*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 113 of 126 Total Chromium Monitoring 1

- Contaminant 2

- CAS Registry Number 3

- Analytical Methods a 4

- Minimum Reporting Level b 5

- Sampling Location c 6

- Period During Which Monitoring to be Completed total chromium N/A EPA 200.8 ASTM D5673

- 10 SM 3125 g 0.2 μg/L EPTDS and DSMRT 1/1/2013

- 12/31/2015

Column headings are:
1- Contaminant: the name of the contaminant to be analyzed.
2- CAS (Chemical Abstract Service) Registry Number or Identification Number: a unique number identifying the chemical contaminants. 3-Analytical Methods: method numbers identifying the methods that must be used to test the contaminants. For List 3, analysis will only be performed by laboratories under
contract to EPA.
4- Minimum Reporting Level: the value and unit of measure at or above which the concentration of the contaminant must be measured using the approved analytical methods. If EPA determines, after the first six months of monitoring, that the MRLs specified in UCMR 3 result in excessive resampling, EPA will establ ish alternate MRLs and will notify affected PWSs and laboratories of the new MRLs. For List 3, minimum reporting level is based on volume of water filtered and PCR amplification level.
5- Sampling Location: the locations within a PWS at which samples must b e collected.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 114 of 126 6- Period During Which Monitoring to b e Completed: the time period during which the sampling and testing will occur for the indicated contaminant.

a The analytical procedures shall be performed in accordance with the documents associated with each method (per the following footnotes)

. The incorporation by reference of the following documents listed in 40 CFR 141.40 (c) footnotes d through j was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Information on how to obtain these documents can be provided by the Safe Drinking Water Hotline at (800) 426

- 4791. Publically available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Water Docket. The Docket ID is EPA

- OW

- 2009

- 0090. Hard copies of these documents may be viewed at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room
33 3 4, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket C enter Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566

- 1744, and the telephone number for the Water docket is (202) 566

- 2426. Copyrighted materials are only available for viewing in hard copy. These documents may also be viewed at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 1

- 866

- 272

- 6272 or go to: http://www.archives.gov/locations/

.

b The m inimum r eporting l evel (MRL) is the minimum concentration of each analyte that Comment [E70]: Updated the Incorporation by Reference format per guidance from OFR for the footers of this table.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 115 of 126 mus t be reported to EPA.

c Sampling must occur at entry points to the distribution system (EPTDSs) after treatment is applied that represent each non

- emergency water source in routine use over the 12

- month period of monitoring. Systems that purchase water with multiple connections from the same wholesaler may select one representative connection from that wholesaler. This EPTDS sampling location must be representative of the highest annual volume connections. If the connection selected as the representative EPTDS is not available fo r sampling, an alternate highest volume representat ive connection must be sampled. See 40 CFR 141.35(c)(3) for an explanation of the requirements related to use of representative ground water EPTDSs. Sampling for total chromium, chromium-6, cobalt, molybdenum, strontium, vanadium, and chlorate must be conducted at distribution system maximum residence time (DSMRT) sampling locations. DSMRT is defined as an active point (i.e., a location that currently provides water to customers) in the distribution system where the water has been in the system the longest relative to the EPTDS

. d EPA Method 539 “ Determination of Hormones in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction (SPE) and Liquid Chromatography Electrospray Ionization Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC

- ESI

- MS/M S) ,” Version 1.0, November 2010, EPA 815

- B

- 10

- 001 is available at http://water.epa.gov/scitech/drinkingwater/labcert/analyticalmethods_ogwdw.cfm

.

e EPA Method 524.3 “Measurement of Purgeable Organic Compounds in Water by Capillary Column Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry,” Version 1.0, June 2009 ,*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 116 of 126 EPA 815

- B

- 09

- 009 is available at http://water.epa.gov/scitech/drinkingwater/labcert/analyticalmethods_ogwdw.cfm

. f EPA Method 522 “Determination of 1,4

- Dioxane in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction (SPE) and Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) with S elected Ion Monitoring (SIM),” Version 1.0, September 2008 , EPA 600

- R

- 08

- 101 is available at http://www.epa.gov/nerlcwww/ordmeth.htm

.
g EPA Method 200.8 “Determination of Trace Elements in Waters and Wa stes by Inductively Coupled Plasma

- Mass Spectrometry,” Version 5.4, 1994 is available at http://www.NEMI.gov

. ASTM D5673

- 10 “ Standard Test Method for Elements in Water by Inductively Coupled Plasma

- Mass Spectrometry ,” is available for purchase at http://www.astm.org/Standards/D5673.htm

. SM 3125 “ Metals by Inductively Coupled Plasma/Mass Spectrometry , ” Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater , 21 st edition (2005). American Public Health Association, 800 I Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001

- 3710. American Public Health Association, 800 I Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001

- 3710.

h EPA Method 218.7 “Determination of Dissolved Hexavalent Chromium in Drink ing Water by Ion Chromatography, ” Version 1.0, September 2011, EPA TSC

- 3 TSC

- 0768 is available at http://water.epa.gov/scitech/drinkingwater/labcert/analyticalmethods_ ogwdw.cfm

. i EPA Method 300.1 “Determination of Inorganic Anions in Drinking Water by Ion*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 117 of 126 Chromatography,” Revision 1.0, 1997 is available at http://water.epa.gov/scitech/drinkingwater/labcert/analyticalmethods_ogwdw.cfm

. ASTM D6581

- 08 “ Standard Test Methods for Bromate, Bromide, Chlorate, and Chlorite in Drinking Water by Suppressed Ion Chromatography ,” Available for purchase on the
Internet at http://www.astm.org/Standards/D6581.htm

. SM 4110D “ Determination of Anions by Ion Chromatography, Part D, Ion Chromatography Determination of Oxyhalides and Bromide ,” Standard Methods for the
Examin ation of Water and Wastewater , 21 st edition (2005). American Public Health Association, 800 I Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001

- 3710.
j EPA Method 537 “Determination of Selected Perfluorinated Alkyl Acids in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Liquid Chromatography/Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) ,” Version 1.1, September 2009 , EPA 600

- R

- 08

- 0 92 is available at http://www.epa.gov/nerlcwww/ordmeth.htm

. k d Chromium-6 will be measured as soluble chromate ion (CAS Registry Number 13907- 45-4).

e EPA will collect the samples from List 3 Pre

- Screen Testing sampling locations.
* * * * * (4) * * * (i) * * *
(B) Frequency. Yo u must collect the samples within the time frame and according to the frequency specified by contaminant type and water source type for each sampling Comment [E71]: Clarified OMB’s comment pertaining to 141.40 (a)(4)(C) Location. Y ou must collect PreScreen Testing....*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 118 of 126 loc ation, as specified in Table 2, in this paragraph. For the second or subsequent round of sampling, if a sample location is non -operational for more than one month before and one month after the scheduled sampling month (i.e. , it is not possible for you to sample within the window specified in Table 2, in this paragraph), you must notify EPA as specified in §141.35(c)(5) to reschedule your sampling.

Table 2 . Monitoring Frequency by Contaminant and Water Source Types Contaminant Type Water Source Type Time Frame Frequency Chemical Surface water or ground water under the direct influence of surface water (GWUDI) (includes all sampling locations for which some or all of the water comes from a surface water or GWUDI source at any time during the 12 month monitoring period) 12 months You must m onitor for 4 consecutive quarters. Sample events must occur 3 months apart. (Example: If first monitoring is in January, the second monitoring must occur any time in April, the third any time in July and the fourth any time in October .) Ground water 12 months You must monitor twice in a consecutive 12-month period. Sample events must occur 5 - 7 months apart. Microbiological Ground water 12 months You must monitor twice in a consecutive 12-month period. Sample events must occur 5 - 7 months apart. Comment [JL72]: I assume you don’t mean exactly. How much wiggle room is allowed here? See specification below for biannual samples.

Comment [E73]: Clarified by providing an example to show one month “wiggle room”.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 119 of 126 (C) Location . You must collect samples for each List 1 Assessment Monitoring contaminant, and, if applicable, for each List 2 Screening Survey, or List 3 Pre- Screen Testing contaminant, as specified in Table 1, in paragraph (a)(3) of this section. Samples must be collected at each sample point that is specified in column 5 and footnote c of Table 1, in paragraph (a)(3) of this section. If you are a ground water system with multiple EPTDSs, and you request and receive approval from EPA or th e State for sampling at representative EPTDS(s), as specified in §141.35(c)(3), you must collect your samples from the approved representative sampling location(s). Systems conducting Assessment Monitoring must also sample for total chromium, chromium -6, cobalt, molybdenum, strontium, vanadium, and chlorate at the location that represents the maximum residence time in the distribution system (DSMRT ). DSMRT is defined as an active point (i.e., a location that currently provides water to customers) in the distribution system where the water has been in the system the longest relative to the EPTDS

.

(i i) * * *

* * * * *
(G) Sampling forms. Yo u must completely fill out each of the sampling forms and bottles sent to you by the UCMR Sampling Coordinator, including data elements listed in §141.35(e) for each sample, as specified in §141.35(d)(2). You must sign and date the sampling forms. Comment [E74]: Reinstated because we added Scre ening Survey for hormones.
J L : I understand why you added List 2, but I thought you were doing all the List 3 sampling. Why did you add List 3 here? EPA: This language represents the original text that is codified within the CFR defining the three tie red UCMR approach. After first round of OMB comments, it was suggested to remove all but Assessment Monitoring from this clause. Once Screening Survey was introduced for PFCs, the clause was returned to its original form, consistent with the three tiered rule design. JL: Let’s discuss EPA: Added footnote to Table 1 in rule and edited the footnote to Exhibit 2a to address this is comment.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 120 of 126 * * * * * (5) * * *
* * * * * (ii) * * * Correspondence must be addressed to: UCMR Laboratory Approval Coordinator, USEPA, Technical Support Center, 26 West Martin Luther King Dr ive , (MS 140), Cincinnati, OH 45268; or emailed to EPA at: UCMR_Sampling_Coordinator@epa. gov. (iii) Minimum Reporting Level. The MRL is an estimate of the quantitation limi t. Assuming good instrumentation and experienced analysts, an MRL is achievable , with 95% confidence, by 75% of laboratories nationwide. (A) * * *
( 1) All laboratories performing analysis under UCMR must demonstrate that they are capable of meeting data qu ality objectives at or below the MRL listed in Table 1, column 4, in paragraph (a)(3) of this section.

* * * * *

(iv) Laboratory fortified sample matrix and laboratory fortified sample matrix duplicate. You must ensure that your laboratory prepares and analyzes the Laboratory Fortified Sample Matrix (LFSM) sample for accuracy and Laboratory Fortified Sample Matrix Duplicate (LFSMD) samples for precision to determine method accuracy and precision*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 121 of 126 for all c ontaminants in Table 1, in paragraph (a)(3) of this section. LFSM/LFSMD samples must be prepared using a sample collected and analyzed in accordance with UCMR requirements and analyzed at a frequency of 5% (or 1 LFSM/LFSMD set per every 20 samples) or with each sample batch, whichever is more frequent. In addition, the LFSM/LFSMD fortification concentrations must be alternated between a low

- level fortification and mid

- level fortification approximately 50% of the time. (For example: a set of 40 samples will require preparation and analysis of 2 LFSM/LFSMD paired samples. The first LFSM/LFSMD paired sample set must be fortified at either the low

level or mid

- level, and the second LFSM/LFSMD paired sample set must be fortified with the other standard, either th e low

- level or mid

- level, whichever was not used for the initial LFSM/LFSMD paired sample set.) The low

- level LFSM/LFSMD fortification
concentration must be within **±** 50% of the MRL for each contaminant (e.g., for an MRL
of 1 μ g/L the acceptable fortificatio n levels must be between 0.5 μg/L and 1.5 μ g/L). The
mid

- level LFSM/LFSMD fortification concentration must be within **±** 20% of the midlevel calibration standard for each contaminant, and is to represent, where possible and where the laboratory has data from previously analyzed samples, an approximate average concentration observed in previous analyses of that analyte. There are no UCMR contaminant recovery acceptance criteria specified for LFSM/LFSMD analyses. All LFSM/LFSMD data are to be reported.

* * * * **** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 122 of 126 (vi) Reporting

. You must require your laboratory to submit these data electronically to the State and EPA using EPA’ s electronic data reporting system, accessible at ( ht tp://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/ucmr/ucmr3/reporting.cfm ), within 90 120 days from the sample collection date. You then have 30 60 days from when the laboratory posts the data to review, approve and submit the data to the State and EPA, via EPA ’ s electronic data reporting system. If you do not electronically approve and submit the laboratory data to EPA within 30 60 days of the laboratory posting data to EPA ’ s electronic reporting system, the data will be considered approved and available for State and EPA review.
* * * * * ( c) Incorporation by reference. The se standards are incorporated by reference into this section with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1CFR p art 51. All approved material is available to the public. All approved material is available for inspection either electronically at www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Water Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. This Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for this Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is (202) 566-2426, and is available from the sources below. It is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call ( 202 ) 741-6030 or go to Comment [E75]: Updated the Incorporation by Reference format per guidance from OFR for this new paragraph.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 123 of 126 http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_0f_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html. (1) The following methods from the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington,
DC 20004. (i) EPA Method 200.8 “Determination of Trace Elements in Waters and Wastes by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Mass Spectrometry,” Version 5.4, 1994, available at https://www.NEMI.gov. (ii) EPA Method 218.7 “Determination of Hexavalent Chromium in Drinking Water by Ion Chromatography with Post

- Column Derivatization and UV

- Visible Spectroscopic Detection,” Version 1.0, November 2011, EPA 815-R-11-005, available at http://water.epa.gov/scitech/drinkingwater/labcert/analyticalmethods_ogwdw.cfm

. ( iii ) EPA Method 300.1 “Determination of Inorganic Anions in Drinking Water by Ion Chro matography,” Revision 1.0, 1997, available at http://water.epa.gov/scitech/drinkingwater/labcert/analyticalmethods_ogwdw.cfm

. (iv) EPA Method 522 “Determination of 1,4-Dioxane in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction (SPE) and Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) with Selected Ion Monito ring (SIM),” Version 1.0, September 2008, EPA/600/R-08/101, available at http://www.epa.gov/nerlcwww/ordmeth.htm. (v) EPA Method 524.3 “Measurement of Purgeable Organic Compounds in Water by Capillary C olumn Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry,” Version 1.0, June 2009, EPA 815-B-09-009, available at*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 124 of 126 http ://water.epa.gov/scitech/drinkingwater/labcert/analyticalmetho ds_ogwdw.cfm. (vi) EPA Method 537 “Determination of Selected Perfluorinated Alkyl Acids in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Liquid Chromatography/Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC/MS/MS),” Version 1.1, September 2009, EPA/600/R-08/092, available
at http://www.epa.gov/nerlcwww/ordmeth.htm. ( v i i ) EPA Method 539 “Determination of Hormones in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction (SPE) and Liquid Chromatography Electrospray Ionization Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC

- ESI -MS/MS),” Version 1.0, November 2010, EPA 815-B-10-001, available at http://water.epa.gov/scitech/drinkingwater/labcert/analyticalmeth ods_ogwdw.cfm. (2) The following methods from “ ASTM International, ” 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428

. (i) ASTM D5673 -10 “Standard Test Method for Elements in Water by Inductively Coupled Plasma- Mass Spectrometry

. ” A vailable for purchase at http://www.astm.org/Standards/D5673.htm. (ii) ASTM D6581 -08 “Standard Test Methods for Bromate, Bromide, Chlorate, and Chlorite in Drinking Water by Suppressed Ion Chromatography

. ” Available for purchase
at http://www.astm.org/Standards/D6581.htm. (3) The following methods from “ Standard Methods for the Examination of Water & Wastewater, ” 21 st edition (2005), American Public Health Association, 800 I Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001-3710.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 125 of 126 (i) SM 3125 “Metals by Inductively Coupled Plasma/Mass Spectrometry

. ” (ii) SM 4110D “Determination of Anions by Ion Chromatography, Part D, Ion Chromatography Determination of Oxyhalides and Bromide

. ”
* * * * *

PART 14 2 - NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTATION

5. The a uthority c itation for p art 14 2 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-4, 300j- 9, and 300j -11.

Subpart B

– Primary Enforcement Responsibility

6. Section 142.16 is amended as follows: a. In paragraph (j) introductory text by removing “§141.40”. b. In paragraph (j)(1) by revising the first sentence.

§142.16 Special primacy requirements.

* * * * * (j) * * **** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review *** 

### Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** Track changes noted from draft to “revised” final version

Page 126 of 126 (1) If a State chooses to issue waivers from the monitoring requirements in §§141.23 and 141.24, the State shall describe the procedures and criter ia which it will use to review waiver applications and issue wavier determinations. * * *

* * * * *