Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 4) for Public Water Systems and Announcement of a Public Meeting, 76897-76923 [2015-30824]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 238 (Friday, December 11, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 76897-76923]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-30824]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 141

[EPA-HQ-OW-2015-0218; FRL-9935-74-OW]
RIN 2040-AF10


Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 4) 
for Public Water Systems and Announcement of a Public Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of public meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing a 
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) rule that requires public water systems 
to collect occurrence data for contaminants that may be present in tap 
water but are not yet subject to EPA's drinking water standards set 
under SDWA. This rule, revised every five years as required by SDWA, 
benefits public health by providing EPA and other interested parties 
with scientifically valid data on the national occurrence of selected 
contaminants in drinking water, such as cyanotoxins associated with 
harmful algal blooms. This data set is one of the primary sources of 
information on occurrence, levels of exposure and population exposure 
the Agency uses to develop regulatory decisions for emerging 
contaminants in the public drinking water supply. This proposal 
identifies eleven analytical methods to support water system monitoring 
for a total of 30 chemical contaminants/groups, consisting of ten 
cyanotoxins/groups; two metals; eight pesticides plus one pesticide 
manufacturing byproduct (hereinafter collectively referred to as 
``pesticides''); three brominated haloacetic acid groups of 
disinfection byproducts; three alcohols; and three semivolatile organic 
chemicals. EPA is also announcing a public webinar to discuss this 
proposal of the fourth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 9, 2016. Under 
the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), comments on the information 
collection provisions are best assured of consideration if the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or 
before January 11, 2016. The public webinar will be held on January 13, 
2016, from 1:00 p.m.. to 4:30 p.m., eastern time. Persons wishing to 
participate in the webinar must register

[[Page 76898]]

by January 10, 2016, as described in section II.M.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2015-0218, at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot 
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any 
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any 
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) 
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a 
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment 
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA 
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located 
outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other 
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA 
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, 
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brenda D. Parris, Standards and Risk 
Management Division (SRMD), Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water 
(OGWDW) (MS 140), Environmental Protection Agency, 26 West Martin 
Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45268; telephone number: (513) 569-
7961; or email address: parris.brenda@epa.gov; or Melissa Simic, SRMD, 
OGWDW (MS 140), Environmental Protection Agency, 26 West Martin Luther 
King Drive, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268; telephone number: (513) 569-7864; 
or email address: simic.melissa@epa.gov. For general information, 
contact the Safe Drinking Water Hotline. Callers within the United 
States can reach the Hotline at (800) 426-4791. The Hotline is open 
Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays, from 10 a.m. to 4 
p.m., eastern time. The Safe Drinking Water Hotline can also be found 
on the Internet at: https://water.epa.gov/drink/hotline/.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. What action is the Agency taking and why?
    C. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?
    D. What is the estimated cost of this proposed action?
II. Background
    A. How has EPA implemented the Unregulated Contaminant 
Monitoring Program?
    B. How are the Contaminant Candidate List (CCL), the UCMR 
program, the Regulatory Determination process and the NCOD 
interrelated?
    C. What notable changes are being proposed for UCMR 4?
    D. How did EPA prioritize candidate contaminants and what 
contaminants are proposed for UCMR 4?
    E. What is the proposed applicability date?
    F. What are the proposed UCMR 4 sampling design and timeline of 
activities?
    1. Sampling Frequency, Timing
    2. Sampling Locations
    3. Phased Sample Analysis for Microcystins
    4. Representative Sampling
    5. Summary
    G. What are reporting requirements for UCMR 4?
    1. Data Elements
    2. Duplicate Samples
    H. What are Minimum Reporting Levels (MRLs) and how were they 
determined?
    I. How do laboratories become approved to conduct UCMR 4 
analyses?
    1. Request to Participate
    2. Registration
    3. Application Package
    4. EPA's Review of Application Package
    5. Proficiency Testing
    6. Written EPA Approval
    J. What documents are being incorporated by reference?
    1. Methods From the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    2. Methods From ``ASTM International''
    3. Methods From ``Standard Methods for the Examination of Water 
& Wastewater''
    4. Methods From ``Standard Methods Online''
    5. Method From ``Ohio EPA''
    K. What is the states' role in the UCMR program?
    L. What stakeholder meetings have been held in preparation for 
UCMR 4?
    M. How do I participate in the upcoming stakeholder meeting?
    1. Webinar Participation
    2. Webinar Materials
    N. How did EPA consider Children's Environmental Health?
    O. How did EPA address Environmental Justice?
III. 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 (PRA)
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act and 1 CFR 
Part 51
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
IV. References

Abbreviations and Acronyms

[mu]g/L Microgram per liter
ADDA (2S, 3S, 8S, 9S, 4E, 6E)-3-amino-9-methoxy-2,6,8-trimethyl-10-
phenyl-4, 6-decadienoic acid
ASDWA Association of State Drinking Water Administrators
ASTM ASTM International
CAS Chemical Abstract Service
CBI Confidential Business Information
CCC Continuing Calibration Check
CCL Contaminant Candidate List
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CLDA Chlorine Dioxide Applied After SR Sample Location
CLDB Chlorine Dioxide Applied Before SR Sample Location
CWS Community Water System
DBPR Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule
DSMRT Distribution System Maximum Residence Time
ELISA Enzyme-linked Immunosorbent Assay
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
EPTDS Entry Point to the Distribution System
FR Federal Register
GC Gas Chromatography
GC/ECD Gas Chromatography/Electron Capture Detection
GC/MS Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry
GW Ground Water
GWUDI Ground Water Under the Direct Influence of Surface Water
HAAs Haloacetic Acids
HAA5 Dibromoacetic Acid, Dichloroacetic Acid, Monobromoacetic Acid, 
Monochloroacetic Acid, Trichloroacetic Acid
HAA6Br Bromochloroacetic Acid, Bromodichloroacetic Acid, 
Dibromoacetic Acid, Dibromochloroacetic Acid, Monobromoacetic Acid, 
Tribromoacetic Acid
HAA9 Bromochloroacetic Acid, Bromodichloroacetic Acid, 
Chlorodibromoacetic Acid, Dibromoacetic Acid, Dichloroacetic Acid, 
Monobromoacetic Acid, Monochloroacetic Acid, Tribromoacetic Acid, 
Trichloroacetic Acid
HPXA Hydrogen Peroxide Applied After Source Water Sample Location
HPXB Hydrogen Peroxide Applied Before Source Water Sample Location
IC-MS/MS Ion Chromatography/Tandem Mass Spectrometry
ICP-MS Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry
ICR Information Collection Request
IDC Initial Demonstration of Capability
IS Internal Standard
LFB Laboratory Fortified Blank

[[Page 76899]]

LRB Laboratory Reagent Blank
LCMRL Lowest Concentration Minimum Reporting Level
LC/ECI-MS/MS Liquid Chromatography/Electrospray Ionization/Tandem 
Mass Spectrometry
LC/MS/MS Liquid Chromatography/Tandem Mass Spectrometry
LT2 Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
M Million
MRL Minimum Reporting Level
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NCOD National Drinking Water Contaminant Occurrence Database
NPDWRs National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
NTNCWS Non-transient Non-community Water System
OGWDW Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PA Partnership Agreement
PEMA Permanganate Applied After Source Water Sample Location
PEMB Permanganate Applied Before Source Water Sample Location
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
PT Proficiency Testing
PWS Public Water System
QCS Quality Control Sample
QH Quality HAA Sample
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SDWARS Safe Drinking Water Accession and Review System
SDWIS/Fed Federal Safe Drinking Water Information System
SM Standard Methods
SMP State Monitoring Plan
SOP Standard Operating Procedure
SPE Solid Phase Extraction
SR Source Water
SRF Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
SRMD Standards and Risk Management Division
SUR Surrogate Standard
SVOCs Semivolatile Organic Chemicals
SW Surface Water
TNCWS Transient Non-Community Water System
TOC Total Organic Carbon
UCMR Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Public water systems (PWSs) would be regulated by this proposed, 
fourth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 4). PWSs are 
systems that provide water for human consumption through pipes, or 
other constructed conveyances, to at least 15 service connections or 
that regularly serve an average of at least 25 individuals daily at 
least 60 days out of the year. Under this proposal, all large community 
and non-transient non-community water systems (NTNCWSs) serving more 
than 10,000 people would be required to monitor. A community water 
system (CWS) means a PWS that has at least 15 service connections used 
by year-round residents or regularly serves at least 25 year-round 
residents. A NTNCWS means a PWS that is not a CWS and that regularly 
serves at least 25 of the same people over six months per year. A 
nationally representative sample of CWSs and NTNCWSs serving 10,000 or 
fewer people would also be required to monitor (see ``Statistical 
Design and Sample Selection for the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring 
Regulation'' (USEPA, 2001b) for a description of the statistical 
approach for the nationally representative sample). As is generally the 
case for UCMR monitoring, transient non-community water systems 
(TNCWSs) (i.e., non-community water systems that do not regularly serve 
at least 25 of the same people over six months per year) would not be 
required to monitor under UCMR 4. States, territories and tribes, with 
primary enforcement responsibility (primacy) to administer the 
regulatory program for PWSs under SDWA, can participate in the 
implementation of UCMR 4 through Partnership Agreements (PAs) (see 
discussion of PAs in section II.K). Primacy agencies with PAs can 
choose to be involved in various aspects of the UCMR 4 monitoring for 
PWSs they oversee; however, the PWS remains responsible for compliance. 
Potentially regulated categories and entities are identified in the 
following table.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Examples of
           Category             potentially regulated      NAICS \a\
                                       entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State, local, & tribal          States, local and                 924110
 governments.                    tribal governments
                                 that analyze water
                                 samples on behalf of
                                 PWSs required to
                                 conduct such
                                 analysis; states,
                                 local and tribal
                                 governments that
                                 directly operate
                                 CWSs and NTNCWSs
                                 required to monitor.
Industry......................  Private operators of              221310
                                 CWSs and NTNCWSs
                                 required to monitor.
Municipalities................  Municipal operators               924110
                                 of CWSs and NTNCWSs
                                 required to monitor.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ NAICS = North American Industry Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this 
action. This table summarizes the types of entities that EPA is aware 
could potentially be regulated by this action. If you are uncertain 
whether your entity is regulated by this action after carefully 
examining the definition of PWS found in Sec. Sec.  141.2 and 141.3, 
and the applicability criteria found in Sec.  141.40(a)(1) and (2) of 
Title 40 in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), please consult the 
contacts listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section.

B. What action is the Agency taking and why?

    EPA is proposing a rule to require PWSs to analyze drinking water 
samples for unregulated contaminants that do not have health based 
standards set under SDWA and to report their results to EPA. This will 
be the fourth national monitoring effort under the UCMR program (see 
section II.D). The monitoring provides data to inform future regulatory 
actions to protect public health.
    The public will benefit from information about whether or not 
unregulated contaminants are present in their drinking water. If 
contaminants are not found, consumer confidence in their drinking water 
will improve. If contaminants are found, illnesses may be avoided when 
subsequent actions, such as regulations, reduce or eliminate those 
contaminants.

C. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    As part of its responsibilities under SDWA, EPA implements section 
1445(a)(2), Monitoring Program for Unregulated Contaminants. This 
section, as amended in 1996, requires that once every five years, 
beginning in August 1999, EPA issue a list of no more than 30 
unregulated contaminants to be monitored by PWSs. SDWA requires that 
EPA enter the monitoring data into the Agency's publically available 
National Contaminant Occurrence Database (NCOD). EPA's UCMR program 
must ensure that systems serving a population larger than 10,000 
people, as well as a nationally representative

[[Page 76900]]

sample of PWSs serving 10,000 or fewer people, are required to monitor. 
EPA must 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. EPA is using this authority as the basis for 
monitoring 29 of the 30 contaminants/groups proposed under this rule.
    Section 1445(a)(1)(A) of SDWA, as amended in 1996, requires that 
every person who is subject to any SDWA requirement 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 provision, EPA can also require the 
monitoring of contaminants already subject to EPA's drinking water 
standards. EPA is using this authority as the basis for monitoring one 
of the chemical groups (Haloacetic Acids 5 (HAA5)) proposed under this 
rule. Sample collection and analysis for HAA5 can be done concurrent 
with the unregulated HAA monitoring described in section II.F 
(resulting in no substantive additional burden) and would allow EPA to 
better understand co-occurrence between regulated and unregulated 
disinfection byproducts.
    Hereinafter, all 30 proposed contaminants/groups are collectively 
referred to as ``contaminants.''

D. What is the estimated cost of this proposed action?

    EPA estimates the total average national cost of this proposed 
action will be $25.3 million per year from 2017-2021. EPA has 
documented the assumptions and data sources used in the preparation of 
this estimate in the Information Collection Request (ICR) (USEPA, 
2015a). EPA proposes using eleven analytical methods (eight EPA-
developed analytical methods, one state-developed methodology and two 
alternate equivalent consensus organization-developed methods) to 
analyze samples for 30 UCMR 4 chemical contaminants. EPA's estimate of 
the analytical cost for the UCMR 4 contaminants and related indicators 
is $2,562 per sample set. EPA calculated these costs by summing the 
laboratory unit cost of each method. Exhibit 1 presents a breakdown of 
EPA estimated annual average national costs. Estimated PWS (i.e., large 
and very large) and EPA costs reflect the analytical cost (i.e., non-
labor) for all UCMR 4 methods. EPA pays for the analytical costs for 
all systems serving a population of 10,000 or fewer people. Laboratory 
analysis and sample shipping account for approximately 80% of the total 
national cost for UCMR 4 implementation. EPA estimated laboratory unit 
costs based on consultations with multiple commercial drinking water 
laboratories and, in the case of new methods, a review of the costs of 
analytical methods similar to those proposed in this action. The cost 
of the laboratory methods includes shipping as part of the cost for the 
analysis.
    EPA expects that states would incur labor costs associated with 
voluntary assistance with UCMR 4 implementation. EPA estimated state 
costs using the relevant assumptions from the State Resource Model that 
was developed by the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators 
(ASDWA) (ASDWA, 2013) to help states forecast resource needs. Model 
estimates were adjusted to account for actual levels of state 
participation under UCMR 3. State participation is voluntary; thus, the 
level of effort is expected to vary among states and would depend on 
their individual agreements with EPA.
    EPA assumes that one-third of the systems would monitor during each 
of the three monitoring years from January 2018 through December 2020. 
The total estimated annual costs (labor and non-labor) would be 
incurred as follows:

           Exhibit 1--Estimated Average Annual Costs of UCMR 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Avg. annual cost
                      Respondent                        all respondents
                                                        (2017-2021) \ 1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Systems (25-10,000), including labor \2\ only              $0.16 m
 (non-labor costs \3\ paid for by EPA)...............
Large Systems (10,001-100,000), including labor and              $15.7 m
 non-labor costs.....................................
Very Large Systems (100,001 and greater), including               $4.3 m
 labor and non-labor costs...........................
States, including labor costs related to                         $0.50 m
 implementation coordination.........................
EPA, including labor for implementation, non-labor                $4.7 m
 for small system testing............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    AVERAGE ANNUAL NATIONAL TOTAL....................            $25.3 m
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Totals may not equal the sum of components due to rounding.
\2\ Labor costs pertain to systems, states and EPA. Costs include
  activities such as reading the rule, notifying systems selected to
  participate, sample collection, data review, reporting and record
  keeping.
\3\ Non-labor costs would be incurred primarily by EPA and by very large
  and large PWSs. They include the cost of shipping samples to
  laboratories for testing and the cost of the laboratory analyses.

    Additional details regarding EPA's cost assumptions and estimates 
can be found in the ``DRAFT Information Collection Request for the 
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 4)'' (USEPA, 2015a) ICR 
Number 2192.07, which presents estimated cost and burden for the 2017-
2019 period, consistent with the 3-year time frame for ICRs. Estimates 
of costs over the entire 5-year UCMR 4 sequence of 2017-2021 are 
attached as an appendix to the ICR. Copies of the ICR and its appendix 
may be obtained from the EPA public docket for this proposed rule, 
under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2015-0218.

II. Background

A. How has EPA implemented the unregulated contaminant monitoring 
program?

    EPA published the list of contaminants for the first UCMR (UCMR 1) 
in the Federal Register (FR) on September 17, 1999 (64 FR 50556, 
(USEPA, 1999)), the second UCMR (UCMR 2) on January 4, 2007 (72 FR 368, 
(USEPA, 2007)) and the third UCMR (UCMR 3) on May 2, 2012 (77 FR 26072, 
(USEPA, 2012c)). EPA established a three-tiered approach for monitoring 
contaminants under the UCMR program that takes into account the 
availability of analytical methods, the source of water supply and the 
contaminants likely to be found. Assessment Monitoring for ``List 1'' 
contaminants typically relies on analytical methods, techniques or 
technologies that are in common use by drinking water laboratories. 
Screening Survey monitoring for ``List 2''

[[Page 76901]]

contaminants typically relies on newer analytical methods that are not 
as commonly used, such that laboratory capacity to perform List 2 
analyses may be limited. Finally, Pre-Screen Testing for ``List 3'' 
contaminants is often associated with analytical methods that are very 
recently developed and/or are particularly complex. In addition to 
method complexity and laboratory capacity, EPA considers sampling 
frequency and/or the relevant universe of PWSs when deciding which of 
the three tiers is appropriate for a contaminant.
    EPA designed the Assessment Monitoring sampling approach (USEPA, 
2001b) to ensure that sample results would yield a high level of 
confidence and a low margin of error. The design for a nationally 
representative sample of small systems called for the sample to be 
stratified by water source type (ground water (GW) or surface water 
(SW)), service size category and state (where each state is allocated a 
minimum of two systems in its state monitoring plan (SMP)).
    This action proposes 30 contaminants for List 1, Assessment 
Monitoring from 2018-2020, with pre-monitoring activity in 2017 and 
post-monitoring activity in 2021. EPA developed this proposal after 
considering input from an EPA-state workgroup as well as other 
stakeholders.

B. How are the Contaminant Candidate List (CCL), the UCMR program, the 
Regulatory Determination process and the NCOD interrelated?

    Under the 1996 amendments to SDWA, Congress established a stepwise, 
risk-based approach for determining which contaminants would become 
subject to drinking water standards. Under the first step, EPA is 
required to publish, every five years, a list of contaminants that are 
not yet regulated but which are known or anticipated to occur in PWSs; 
this is the Contaminant Candidate List (CCL). Under the second step, 
EPA must require, every five years, monitoring of up to 30 unregulated 
contaminants to determine their occurrence in drinking water systems; 
this is the UCMR program. Under the third step, EPA is required to 
determine, every five years, whether or not at least five contaminants 
from the CCL warrant regulation, based in part on the UCMR occurrence 
information; this is known as a Regulatory Determination where the 
following questions are evaluated:
    (1) Which contaminants may have an adverse effect on human health?
    (2) Which contaminants are known to occur or are likely to occur in 
drinking water with a frequency and at levels of public health concern?
    (3) Does regulation of such contaminants present a meaningful 
opportunity for risk reduction? Finally, SDWA requires EPA to issue 
national primary drinking water regulations (NPDWRs) for contaminants 
the Agency determines should be regulated.
    The CCL process identifies contaminants that may require 
regulation, while the UCMR program helps provide the data necessary for 
the Regulatory Determination process outlined above. The data collected 
through the UCMR program are stored in the NCOD to facilitate analysis 
and review of contaminant occurrence, and support the Administrator's 
determination on whether regulation of a contaminant is in the public 
health interest, as required under SDWA section 1412(b)(1). UCMR 
results can be viewed by the public at: https://www2.epa.gov/dwucmr.

C. What notable changes are being proposed for UCMR 4?

    This proposed action refines the existing UCMR, as reflected in the 
Code of Federal Regulations, to address the contaminants proposed for 
UCMR 4 monitoring and to reflect lessons learned through prior 
experience implementing UCMRs. EPA's proposed approach and rationale 
for changes are described in the following sections. Key aspects of the 
UCMR program that would remain the same, and are outside the scope of 
today's proposal, include direct implementation of the rule by EPA; the 
number and types of systems included in Assessment Monitoring for the 
majority of the proposed contaminants; and EPA funding for the small 
system testing. Proposed changes include the list of UCMR 4 
contaminants, the analytical methods, monitoring time frame, sampling 
locations, the revised data elements outlined in Exhibit 2 and 
conforming and editorial changes, such as those necessary to remove 
requirements solely related to UCMR 3. A track-changes version of the 
rule language comparing UCMR 3 to the proposed changes for UCMR 4 is 
included in the public docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW 2015-0218) for 
this proposed rule (USEPA, 2015h).

                                 Exhibit 2--Notable Changes Proposed for UCMR 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        CFR Rule section
----------------------------------------------------------------  Description of rule change     Corresponding
                Number                     Title/Description                                    preamble section
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   141.40(a)(3)..................  Analytes to be monitored  Revises Table 1 to include a               II.D
                                        and related               new list of contaminants
                                        specifications.           and associated analytical
                                                                  methods.
Sec.  Sec.   141.35(a) and 141.40(a).  Applicability...........  Revises the Federal Safe                   II.E
                                                                  Drinking Water Information                II.F
                                                                  System (SDWIS/Fed)
                                                                  applicability date (i.e.,
                                                                  the date used to determine
                                                                  which systems are subject
                                                                  to monitoring) to December
                                                                  31, 2015.
                                                                 Revises the monitoring dates
                                                                  to January 2018 through
                                                                  December 2020.

[[Page 76902]]

 
Sec.   141.40(a)(4)..................  Sampling design           Updates Table 2 to change                  II.F
                                        requirements--Frequency.  the sample collection time
                                                                  frame to March--November,
                                                                  and excludes December--
                                                                  February. Additionally,
                                                                  updates the frequency such
                                                                  that, with the exception of
                                                                  cyanotoxins, monitoring
                                                                  would occur every two
                                                                  months (bi-monthly) for SW
                                                                  or ground water under the
                                                                  direct influence of surface
                                                                  water (GWUDI) systems and
                                                                  every six months for GW
                                                                  systems.
                                                                 Updates Table 2 to include
                                                                  monitoring requirements for
                                                                  cyanotoxins for PWSs with
                                                                  SW and GWUDI sources at a
                                                                  frequency of twice a month
                                                                  for four consecutive months
                                                                  (for a total of eight
                                                                  cyanotoxin sampling events).
Sec.   141.40(a)(4)..................  Sampling design           Specifies revised sampling                 II.F
                                        requirements--Location.   locations for Assessment
                                                                  Monitoring, including HAA5
                                                                  Stage 2 compliance and/or
                                                                  distribution system maximum
                                                                  residence time (DSMRT)
                                                                  locations for the
                                                                  brominated haloacetic acids
                                                                  (HAAs), and source water
                                                                  intake locations for total
                                                                  organic carbon (TOC), total
                                                                  microcystins (i.e. the sum
                                                                  of congeners as measured by
                                                                  ADDA-ELISA), pH and
                                                                  temperature.
Sec.   141.35(e).....................  Reporting requirements--  Updates, revises, adds and               II.G.1
                                        Data elements.            removes data elements to
                                                                  account for the
                                                                  contaminants being
                                                                  proposed, and requires the
                                                                  reporting of quality
                                                                  control data by all
                                                                  laboratories.
Sec.   141.40(a)(4)(ii)(F)...........  Small systems sampling    Removes the requirement for              II.G.2
                                        requirements--Duplicate   small system duplicate
                                        samples.                  quality control samples,
                                                                  although EPA may in the
                                                                  future select a subset of
                                                                  systems to collect
                                                                  duplicate samples if the
                                                                  Agency becomes aware of a
                                                                  need to include this type
                                                                  of quality control.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. How did EPA prioritize candidate contaminants and what contaminants 
are proposed for UCMR 4?

    In establishing the proposed list of contaminants for UCMR 4, EPA 
started with a priority set of contaminants from the draft fourth 
Contaminant Candidate List (CCL 4), which includes 100 chemicals or 
chemical groups and 12 microbes (80 FR 6076, February 4, 2015 (USEPA, 
2015b)). The evaluation and selection process that led to the draft CCL 
4 carried forward the final list of CCL 3 contaminants (except for 
those with regulatory determinations), requested and evaluated 
contaminant nominations from the public and evaluated any new data from 
previous negative regulatory determinations for potential inclusion on 
CCL 4 (77 FR 27057, May 8, 2012 (USEPA, 2012b)).
    EPA selected the proposed UCMR 4 contaminants using a stepwise 
prioritization process. The first step included identifying 
contaminants that: (1) Were not monitored under UCMR 2 or UCMR 3; (2) 
are anticipated to have significant occurrence nationally; and (3) are 
expected to have a completed, validated drinking water method in time 
for rule proposal. This resulted in a set of 45 draft CCL 4 
contaminants and another set of related non-CCL analytes with potential 
health effects of concern that can be measured concurrently using the 
analytical methods for the CCL contaminants. Including related non-CCL 
analytes creates a more cost-effective design and reduces the 
likelihood of needing to include them in a subsequent UCMR.
    The next step was to select contaminants associated with one or 
more of the following considerations: an available health assessment to 
facilitate regulatory determinations; high public concern; critical 
health endpoints (e.g., likely or suggestive carcinogen); active use 
(e.g., pesticides); and an occurrence data gap. This step identified 31 
CCL contaminants, and 18 related non-CCL analytes that can be measured 
using the analytical methods for the CCL contaminants.
    During the final step, EPA considered workgroup and stakeholder 
input; looked at cost-effectiveness of the method/contaminant groups; 
considered implementation factors (e.g., laboratory capacity); and 
further evaluated health, occurrence, and persistence/mobility data to 
identify a proposed list of 30 UCMR 4 contaminants.
    Further information on this prioritization process, as well as 
contaminant-specific information (source, use, production, release, 
persistence, mobility, health effects and occurrence), that EPA used to 
select the proposed analyte list, is contained in ``UCMR 4 Candidate 
Contaminants--Information Compendium'' (USEPA, 2015i). Copies of the 
Compendium may be obtained from the EPA public docket for this proposed 
rule, under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2015-0218.
    EPA invites comment on the proposed UCMR 4 contaminants and their 
associated analytical methods identified in Exhibit 3, as well as any 
other priority contaminants commenters wish to recommend. In 
particular, the Agency welcomes comments on the following contaminants 
that were considered by the workgroup, but not included in the proposed 
list because they were deemed a lower UCMR 4 priority than the 
contaminants identified in Exhibit 3: Legionella pneumophila and 
Mycobacterium avium (both are part of the draft CCL 4); ammonia 
(considered as an indicator of distribution system nitrification 
potential); and the pesticides vinclozolin, hexazinone and disulfoton 
(additional analytes in EPA Method 525.3). More specific information on 
why these contaminants were not included on the proposed list can be 
found in the Information Compendium (USEPA, 2015i) cited

[[Page 76903]]

above. In your comments, please identify the following: Any new 
contaminant(s) that you think the Agency should include in UCMR 4 
monitoring; any contaminant(s) in Exhibit 3 that you think represent a 
lower priority than your new recommendation(s) or that should otherwise 
be removed from the list; the recommended analytical method(s) for any 
new contaminant(s) that you propose; and other relevant details (e.g., 
reporting level, sampling location and sampling frequency). Comments 
that provide supporting data or rationale are especially helpful to the 
Agency.

                 Exhibit 3--30 Proposed UCMR 4 Analytes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             List 1 Analytes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  One Cyanotoxin Group Using ELISA \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
total microcystins
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Seven Cyanotoxins Using EPA Method 544 (SPE LC/MS/MS) \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
microcystin-LA                              microcystin-RR
microcystin-LF                              microcystin-YR
microcystin-LR                              Nodularin
microcystin-LY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Two Cyanotoxins Using EPA Method 545 (LC/ECI-MS/MS) \3\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
anatoxin-a                                  Cylindrospermopsin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Two Metals Using EPA Method 200.8 (ICP-MS) \4\ or Alternate SM \5\ or
                                ASTM \6\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Germanium                                   Manganese
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Nine Pesticides Using EPA Method 525.3 (SPE GC/MS) \7\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
alpha-hexachlorocyclohexane                 Profenofos
chlorpyrifos                                Tebuconazole
Dimethipin                                  total permethrin (cis- &
                                             trans-)
Ethoprop                                    Tribufos
Oxyfluorfen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Three Brominated HAA Groups Using EPA Method 552.3 (GC/ECD) or 557 (IC/
                         ECI-MS/MS) \8\ \9\ \10\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HAA5                                        HAA9
HAA6Br
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Three Alcohols Using EPA Method 541 (GC/MS) \11\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-butanol                                   2-propen-1-ol
2-methoxyethanol
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Three Semivolatile Organic Chemicals (SVOCs) Using EPA Method 530 (GC/
                                MS) \12\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
butylated hydroxyanisole                    quinolone
o-toluidine
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ELISA Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) (Ohio EPA, 2015). EPA
  anticipates having an EPA ELISA method available by the publication of
  the final rule and anticipates that this method will be similar to the
  Ohio EPA methodology. Monitoring includes measuring for pH using one
  of the following methods: EPA Method 150.1 and 150.2 (USEPA, 1983a and
  1983b), ASTM D1293-12 (ASTM, 2012a), SM 4500-H+ B (SM, 2005c), SM 4500-
  H+ B-00 (SM Online, 2000a). Monitoring also includes measuring for
  water temperature using one of the following methods: SM 2550 (SM,
  2005a) or SM 2550-10 (SM Online, 2010).
\2\ EPA Method 544 (Solid Phase Extraction (SPE) Liquid chromatography/
  tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS)) (USEPA, 2015f). This method would
  only be used if analyses by ELISA (for ``total microcystins'') yielded
  results above reporting limits.
\3\ EPA Method 545 (Liquid chromatography/electrospray ionization/tandem
  mass spectrometry (LC/ESI-MS/MS)) (USEPA, 2015g).
\4\ EPA Method 200.8 (Inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-
  MS)) (USEPA, 1994).
\5\ Standard Methods (SM) 3125 (SM, 2005b) or SM 3125-09 (SM Online,
  2009).
\6\ ASTM International (ASTM) D5673-10 (ASTM, 2010).
\7\ EPA Method 525.3 (SPE Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS))
  (USEPA, 2012a).
\8\ EPA Method 552.3 (GC/Electron capture detection (ECD)) (USEPA, 2003)
  and EPA Method 557 (Ion chromatography-electrospray ionization-tandem
  mass spectrometry (IC-ESI-MS/MS)) (USEPA, 2009b). HAA5 includes:
  dibromoacetic acid, dichloroacetic acid, monobromoacetic acid,
  monochloroacetic acid, trichloroacetic acid. HAA6Br includes:
  bromochloroacetic acid, bromodichloroacetic acid, dibromoacetic acid,
  dibromochloroacetic acid, monobromoacetic acid, tribromoacetic acid.
  HAA9 includes: bromochloroacetic acid, bromodichloroacetic acid,
  chlorodibromoacetic acid, dibromoacetic acid, dichloroacetic acid,
  monobromoacetic acid, monochloroacetic acid, tribromoacetic acid,
  trichloroacetic acid.
\9\ Regulated HAAs (HAA5) are included in the proposed monitoring
  program to gain a better understanding of co-occurrence with currently
  unregulated disinfection byproducts.
\10\ Brominated HAA monitoring also includes sampling for indicators TOC
  and bromide using methods approved for compliance monitoring. TOC
  methods include: SM 5310B, SM 5310C, SM 5310D (SM, 2005d, 2005e,
  2005f), or SM 5310B-00, SM 5310C-00, SM 5310D-00 (SM Online, 2000b,
  2000c, 2000d), EPA Method 415.3 (Rev. 1.1 or 1.2) (USEPA, 2005,
  2009a). Bromide methods include: EPA Methods 300.0 (Rev. 2.1), 300.1
  (Rev. 1.0), 317.0 (Rev. 2.0), 326.0 (Rev. 1.0) (USEPA, 1993, 1997,
  2001a, 2002) or ASTM D 6581-12 (ASTM, 2012b).
\11\ EPA Method 541 (GC/MS) (USEPA, 2015e).
\12\ EPA Method 530 (GC/MS) (USEPA, 2015d).


[[Page 76904]]

E. What is the proposed applicability date?

    EPA proposes (in Sec.  141.40(a)) a new applicability date of 
December 31, 2015. That is, the determination of whether a PWS is 
required to monitor under UCMR 4 is based on the type of system (e.g., 
CWS, NTNCWS, etc.) and its retail population served, as indicated by 
the SDWIS/Fed inventory on December 31, 2015. If a PWS believes its 
retail population served in SDWIS/Fed is inaccurate, the system should 
contact its state to verify its population as of the applicability date 
and request a correction if necessary. The 5-year UCMR 4 program would 
take place from January 2017 through December 2021.

F. What are the proposed UCMR 4 sampling design and timeline of 
activities?

    The proposed rule identifies sampling and analysis for List 1 
contaminants within the 2018 to 2020 time frame. Preparations prior to 
2018 are expected to include coordination of laboratory approval, 
selection of representative small systems, development of SMPs and 
establishment of monitoring schedules. EPA anticipates that there is 
enough laboratory capacity to meet the needs of Assessment Monitoring. 
Exhibit 4 illustrates the major activities that we expect will take 
place in preparation for and during the implementation of UCMR 4.

                                Exhibit 4--Proposed Timeline of UCMR 4 Activities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               2017                       2018               2019               2020                2021
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After proposed rule publication:             [larr] Assessment Monitoring [rarr]            Complete reporting
 EPA                                                                                         and analysis of
 laboratory approval program                         List 1 Contaminants                     data.
 begins.
After final rule publication: EPA/    All large systems serving more than 10,000 people;
 state
 primacy authorities (1) develop       800 small systems serving 10,000 or fewer people
 SMPs
 (including the nationally                             for cyanotoxins;
 representa-
 tive sample); and (2) inform          800 small systems serving 10,000 or fewer people
 PWSs/
 establish monitoring plans.                   for the 20 additional chemicals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To minimize the impact of the rule on small systems (those serving 
10,000 or fewer people), EPA pays for the sample kit preparation, 
sample shipping fees and analysis costs for these systems. In addition, 
no small system would be required to monitor for both cyanotoxins and 
the 20 additional UCMR chemicals. Consistent with prior UCMRs, large 
systems (those serving more than 10,000 people) pay for all costs 
associated with their monitoring. A summary of the estimated number of 
systems subject to monitoring is shown in Exhibit 5.

                             Exhibit 5--Systems To Participate in UCMR 4 Monitoring
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 National sample assessment monitoring
                                        ------------------------------------------------------  Total number of
 System size (number of people served)                                 20 Additional List 1     systems per size
                                           10 List 1 cyanotoxins            chemicals               category
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Systems: \1\
    25-10,000..........................  800 randomly selected SW   800 randomly selected SW,              1,600
                                          or GWUDI systems.          GWUDI and GW systems.
Large Systems: \2\
    10,001 and over....................  All SW or GWUDI systems    All SW, GWUDI and GW                   4,292
                                          (1,987).                   systems (4,292).
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total..........................  2,787....................  5,092....................              5,892
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Total for small systems is additive because these systems would only be selected for one component of UCMR 4
  sampling (10 cyanotoxins or 20 additional chemicals). EPA would pay for all analytical costs associated with
  monitoring at small systems.
\2\ Large system counts are approximate. The number of large systems is not additive. All SW and GWUDI systems
  would monitor for cyanotoxins; those same systems would also monitor for the 20 additional List 1 chemicals,
  as would the large GW systems.

1. Sampling Frequency, Timing
    The number of samples for SW, GWUDI and GW systems would generally 
be consistent with those during prior UCMR cycles, with the exceptions 
noted for the monitoring of cyanotoxins. Water systems would be 
required to collect samples during the monitoring time frame of March 
through November (excluding December, January and February). With the 
exception of cyanotoxin monitoring, sampling would take place every two 
months for SW and GWUDI systems (a total of four sampling events), and 
at 6-month intervals for GW systems (a total of two sampling events). 
For cyanotoxin monitoring, SW and GWUDI systems would collect samples 
twice a month for four consecutive months (total of eight sampling 
events). GW systems would be excluded from cyanotoxin monitoring.
    The Assessment Monitoring sampling time frame would take place 
during the compressed period of March through November to better 
reflect the times of year when contaminants are more likely to occur in 
drinking water. Populations of cyanobacteria generally peak when water 
temperature is highest (Graham et al., 2008). Seasonality of pesticide 
occurrence in surface waters has been well documented, and generally 
relates to the timing of pesticide applications in the watershed, 
rainfall or irrigation patterns and watershed size (USGS, 2014; Ryberg 
and Gilliom, 2015). Based on this information, EPA anticipates that 
sampling in the December through February time period would not 
accurately reflect occurrence for some of the contaminants, 
particularly cyanotoxins and pesticides. Industry and laboratory 
stakeholders have also observed that the traditional UCMR approach has 
the potential to underestimate exposure for some contaminants because 
of seasonal occurrence (Roberson and Eaton, 2014). Therefore, EPA is 
proposing that no sampling take place during those winter months, 
except for resampling purposes. EPA welcomes comments on this approach.
    Large system schedules (year and months of monitoring) would 
initially be determined by EPA in conjunction

[[Page 76905]]

with the states (as described in section II.K) and these PWSs would 
have an opportunity to modify this schedule for planning purposes or 
other reasons (e.g., to conduct monitoring during the months the system 
or the state believes are most vulnerable, spread costs over multiple 
years, a sampling location will be closed during the scheduled month of 
monitoring, etc.). PWSs would not be permitted to reschedule monitoring 
specifically to avoid sample collection during a suspected vulnerable 
period. EPA proposes to schedule and coordinate small system monitoring 
by working closely with partnering states. SMPs provide an opportunity 
for states to review and revise the initial sampling schedules that EPA 
proposes (see discussion of SMPs in section II.K).
2. Sampling Locations
    Sample collection for the UCMR 4 contaminants would take place at 
the entry point to the distribution system (EPTDS), with the following 
exceptions/additions. Sampling for ``total microcystins'' (i.e., the 
sum of congeners as measured by ADDA-ELISA) would also take place at 
the source water intake (concurrent with the collection of cyanotoxin 
samples at the EPTDS) unless the PWS purchases 100 percent of their 
water. ``Consecutive systems'' would only sample for cyanotoxins at 
their EPTDS. Measurements for temperature and pH would take place at 
the source water intake (concurrent with total microcystin sampling). 
HAA sampling would take place in the distribution system. Sampling for 
TOC and bromide would take place at a single source water intake 
(concurrent with HAA sampling in the distribution system). The 
indicator data, along with the disinfectant type and water treatment 
information, would aid in the understanding of brominated HAA and 
cyanotoxin occurrence and treatment efficacy.
    For purposes of total microcystin sampling, temperature and pH 
measurement, and TOC and bromide sampling, EPA defines source water 
under UCMR as untreated water entering the water treatment plant (i.e., 
at a location prior to any treatment). Systems that are subject to the 
Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2) would use their 
source water sampling site(s) that have been identified under that rule 
(71 FR 654, January 5, 2006 (USEPA, 2006a)). Systems subject to the 
Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (DBPR) would use 
their TOC source water sampling site(s) (63 FR 69390, December 16, 1998 
(USEPA, 1998c)). TOC source water sampling site(s) were set under Stage 
1 DBPR and remain unchanged under Stage 2 DBPR. If a system has two 
different source water sampling locations for LT2 and Stage 1 DBPR, the 
system would be permitted to select the sample point that best 
represents the definition of source water sample location(s) for UCMR.
    EPA proposes that PWSs monitor for HAAs only in the distribution 
system. If the system's treatment plant/water source is subject to 
sampling requirements under Sec.  141.622 (monitoring requirements for 
Stage 2 DBPR), the water systems must collect samples for the HAAs at 
the sampling locations identified under that rule (71 FR 388, January 
4, 2006 (USEPA, 2006b)). If a treatment plant/water source is not 
subject to Stage 2 DBPR monitoring, then the water system must collect 
HAA distribution system samples at a location that represents the 
DSMRT. UCMR 4 HAA samples and HAA5 Stage 2 DBPR compliance monitoring 
samples may be collected by the PWS at the same time. However, in such 
cases, PWSs would be required to arrange for UCMR 4 HAA samples to be 
analyzed by a UCMR 4 approved laboratory using EPA Method 552.3 or 557 
(compliance methods used for analysis of Stage 2 DBPR samples).
3. Phased Sample Analysis for Microcystins
    EPA is proposing a phased sample analysis approach for microcystins 
to reduce analytical costs (i.e., PWSs must collect all required 
samples for each sampling event but not all samples may need to be 
analyzed). Two samples would be collected for ADDA ELISA (one source 
water intake sample and one EPTDS), and one sample would be collected 
for EPA Method 544 at the EPTDS. Initially, source water intake samples 
(collected by ``non-consecutive'' SW and GWUDI PWSs) would be analyzed 
for total microcystins as defined by an ADDA specific ELISA 
methodology. ADDA ELISA is a widely used screening assay that allows 
for the aggregate detection of numerous microcystin congeners; it does 
not allow for measurement of the individual congeners (USEPA, 2015c; 
Fischer et al., 2001; McElhiney and Lawton, 2005; Zeck et al., 2001). 
If the source water intake ELISA result is less than 0.3 micrograms per 
liter ([mu]g/L) (i.e., the reporting limit for total microcystins), 
then the other collected samples (from the EPTDS) would not be analyzed 
for that sample event and only the source water result would be 
reported to EPA. If the ELISA result from the source water intake is 
greater than or equal to 0.3 [mu]g/L, the result would be reported to 
EPA and the sample from the EPTDS would then also be analyzed for total 
microcystins by ELISA. ELISA analysis of the EPTDS sample would be the 
first step for consecutive systems. If the EPTDS ELISA result is less 
than 0.3 [mu]g/L, then no additional analyses would be required for 
that particular sample event and the result would be reported to EPA. 
If the EPTDS ELISA result is greater than or equal to 0.3 [mu]g/L, then 
that result would be reported to EPA and the other microcystin sample 
collected at the EPTDS would be analyzed using EPA Method 544 to 
identify and quantify six particular microcystin congeners and a 
related toxin, nodularin. Method 544 uses liquid chromatography with 
tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) to quantify and speciate 
microcystin congeners at low concentrations. Using Method 544 to 
analyze EPTDS samples that tested positive for microcystins by ELISA is 
expected to help EPA and the states to establish the degree to which 
particular congener occurrence compares with total microcystin 
occurrence as measured by ADDA ELISA (USEPA, 2015c).
    This phased sample analysis approach for microcystins has the 
potential to achieve significant cost savings. A similar approach is 
not practical for cylindrospermopsin and anatoxin-a samples. Therefore, 
EPA proposes that cylindrospermopsin and anatoxin-a sampling be 
conducted simultaneously with the microcystins, twice a month for four 
consecutive months only at the EPTDS, and that the samples be analyzed 
using EPA Method 545.
4. Representative Sampling
    As during past UCMRs and as described in Sec.  141.35(c)(3), the 
proposed rule would allow large GW systems that have multiple EPTDSs, 
with prior approval, to sample at representative sampling locations 
rather than at each EPTDS. Representative sampling plans approved under 
prior UCMRs will be recognized as valid for UCMR 4 and these systems 
must submit a copy of documentation from their state or EPA that 
approves their alternative sampling plan. Any new GW representative 
monitoring plans must be submitted to be reviewed by the state or EPA 
within 120 days from publication of the final rule. Once approved, 
these representative EPTDS locations, along with previously approved 
EPTDS locations from prior UCMRs, must be loaded into the Safe Drinking 
Water

[[Page 76906]]

Accession and Review System (SDWARS) by December 31, 2017.
5. Summary
    With the exception of the increased sample frequency, phased sample 
analysis for microcystins, revised sampling locations and the 
compressed monitoring schedule, the approach to UCMR 4 Assessment 
Monitoring remains consistent with that established for UCMR 3.
    EPA invites comments regarding the cyanotoxin monitoring approach 
and the usefulness of collecting temperature and pH data (concurrently 
with the ELISA sample) at the source water intake, as well as 
designating source water type (e.g., lakes/reservoirs or flowing 
streams), as potential indicators of cyanotoxin occurrence. EPA also 
invites comments on the appropriateness of other potential cyanotoxin 
indicators, recognizing that the cost of any additional indicator 
monitoring would need to be weighed with consideration given to the 
likelihood of any other parameters serving as effective indicators.
    Finally, EPA recognizes the trade-off between PWS burden and 
occurrence-data representativeness, and has attempted to strike a 
reasonable balance in selecting the affected PWSs and establishing the 
monitoring frequency. The Agency welcomes comment on this particular 
point, including input regarding the appropriateness of collecting 
occurrence data from fewer PWSs. This could include employing the 
Screening Survey approach used in UCMR 3 or an alternative design. EPA 
requests that commenters suggesting alternatives describe how their 
proposed approach would be nationally representative of the frequency 
and level of contaminant occurrence.

G. What are reporting requirements for UCMR 4?

1. Data Elements
    EPA proposes the following changes to the reporting requirements 
listed in Table 1 of Sec.  141.35(e) to account for the UCMR 4 
contaminants being proposed and the associated indicators. 
Additionally, EPA proposes to collect quality control information 
related to sample analysis. This information would further ensure that 
methods are followed as written, and would provide continuous quality 
assurance of data reported. EPA collected this information for small 
systems in previous UCMRs and found that doing so helps ensure that 
laboratories consistently follow the methods.
     Add Public Water System Name. New data element to be 
assigned once by the PWS.
     Add Public Water System Facility Name. New data element to 
be assigned once by the PWS for every facility identification code.
     Add Public Water System Facility Type. New data element to 
be assigned once by the PWS for every facility.
     Update Sampling Point Identification Code. Added ``source 
water'' as an example of applicable sampling locations.
     Add Sampling Point Name. New data element to be assigned 
once by the PWS for every sampling point identification code.
     Update Sample Point Type Code. Add source water (SR) to 
account for brominated HAA indicators and microcystin monitoring at the 
intake to the treatment plant.
     Update Disinfectant Type. Adding the following primary 
disinfectant/oxidation practices: Permanganate applied before SR sample 
location (PEMB) and after (PEMA), hydrogen peroxide applied before SR 
sample location (HPXB) and after (HPXA), and chlorine dioxide applied 
before SR sample location (CLDB) and after (CLDA).
     Add Treatment Information. New data element to capture 
treatment associated with the water being sampled.
     Add Disinfectant Residual Type. New data element to 
capture disinfectant residual type information associated with the 
water being sampled.
     Add Extraction Batch Identification Code. New data element 
to allow evaluation of quality control elements associated with 
extraction of samples in methods where extraction is required.
     Add Extraction Date. New data element identifying the date 
of sample extraction.
     Add Analysis Batch Identification Code. New data element 
to allow evaluation of quality control elements associated with 
analyzing samples.
     Add Analysis Date. New data element identifying the start 
date of sample analysis.
     Update Sample Analysis Type. The following elements are 
proposed as quality assurance measures:
    [cir] Continuing calibration check (CCC), an element that verifies 
the accuracy of method calibration;
    [cir] Internal standard (IS), an element that measures the relative 
response of contaminants;
    [cir] Laboratory fortified blank (LFB), an element that verifies 
method performance in the absence of a sample matrix;
    [cir] Laboratory reagent blank (LRB), an element that verifies the 
absence of interferences in the reagents and equipment;
    [cir] Quality control sample (QCS), an element that verifies the 
accuracy of the calibration standards;
    [cir] Quality HAA (QH), HAA sample collected and submitted for 
quality control; and,
    [cir] Surrogate standard (SUR), an element that assesses method 
performance for each extraction.
     Update Analytical Result--Value. Update to ``Analytical 
R