United States .
                    Environmental Protection
                    Agency	
Office of Ground Water
and Drinking Water
Cincinnati, OH 45268
EPA-815-N-01-002a
March 2001
 &EPA     Labcert  Bulletin
In This Issue...

     This issue of the Labcert Bulletin highlights
     NELAC with articles written by Jeanne
     Hankins, the NELAP Director, and the
Chairs  of the Program Policy and Structure
Committee  and  the  Proficiency  Testing
Committee.   Contents  of these  articles are
entirely the authors, printed here as information.
Articles  about the  other Committees will be
featured in future Labcert Bulletins.

Information on PTs, Chromogenic/Fluorogenic
Substrate Tests,  a new chemistry methods
manual,  the 80% rale, QC  criteria for micro
methods promulgated in 1999,  and  the just
promulgated Radionuclide Rule is also included.

As always, we want to hear from you. If there
are certification topics you would like to see
discussed, please call, write, fax or e-mail the
editors. There is a fax form on this page for you
to use to add your name to our mailing list or to
update your information.

Ed Glick 513 569-7939, glick.ed@epa.gov
Patricia Hurr 513 569-7678, hurr.pat@epa.gov
Caroline  Madding    513  569-7402,
madding.caroline@epa.gov

   USEPA
   Technical Support Center (MS-140)
   26 W. Martin Luther King Dr.
   Cincinnati, OH 45268
   FAX: 513 569-7191
    In This Issue  • ?   ^   ' t   ^t.
       WS PX Schedules-"2001   v' ,, .  ''
       /'     
-------
                        WS PT SCHEDULES - 2001
The following are the schedules for NIST-accredited providers' Water Supply Studies for chemistry and
microbiology for the year 2001. For complete information regarding pricing, results, due dates, and parameters
involved in each study, please contact the provider directly. Environmental Resource Associates is also offering
PT studies for RadChem.  Please contact them directly for that schedule.
WS 2001 Proficiency Testing Studies - Opening Dates - Chemistry
Provider
Absolute Standards, Inc.
Accustandard, Inc.
Analytical Products Group, Inc.
Environmental Resource Assoc., Inc.
NSI
Protocol
RTC
SPEX
Ultra Scientific

WS-Asbestos -NY State DOH
1st Qtr
Jan
Jan
Jan,
Feb
2nd Qtr
April
April
•May
3rd Qtr
July
June
Aug
4th Qtr
Oct
Sept
Oct
Every Month
Jan
Jan
Jan
Jan
Jan


April
April
April
April
April

March
July
July
July
July
July


Oct
Oct
Oct
Oct
Oct

Sept
WSM 2001 Proficiency Testing Studies - Opening Dates - Microbiology
Provider
Chrisope Technologies, Inc.
Environmental Resource Associates
Microcheck, Inc.

1st Qtr
Feb
2nd Qtr
May
3rd Qtr
Aug
4th Qtr
Nov
Every Month
April

June

Sept

Oct


-------
Data Reporting Requirements  for Labs Participating in PT Studies
During the first year of privatization of the PT
program, issues have arisen in reporting of data
from the laboratory to the provider and from the
provider to the EPA database.  PT providers are
currently working with NELAC to standardize study
instructions and format  to ensure that  data are
reported in a consistent manner.  Current areas of
concern include: missing EPA Laboratory ID codes,
reporting incorrect units, and of special  concern,
reporting of non-detects. Following are guidelines
to help resolve these issues.

1) Always include the laboratory's unique USEPA
   laboratory identification number.  This is a 7-
   character  identifier  of which  the first two
   characters are the postal abbreviation for the
   state  and the  remaining  are  five  numeric
   characters. This number will appear on any
   previous  PE studies  performed  under  the
   USEPA program.  If a laboratory has never had
   an EPA ID code, please contact Lee Corbin at
   EPA on 513-569-7325.

2) When reporting quantitative data ensure the
   proper units are used. Part of being able to
   analyze the sample successfully is the ability
   to report your results correctly; wrong units
   = wrong results = not acceptable.
3)
4)
When reporting data for a compound that is not
detected use either:
a) < the laboratory detection  limit (numeric
character), or
b) < the laboratory reporting  limit (numeric
character).

When   a   contaminant   is   not being
analyzed/determined,  leave the  field blank.
Use of a zero (0)  or less than (<) could be
interpreted that the  contaminant was analyzed,
   but not  found,
   acceptable."
               and  may result in a  "not
5) Never, on any occasion, use an alpha character
   in the field where a numeric character should be
   expected.

Additionally, PT providers may not modify a value
submitted by a laboratory. It may seem obvious that
the wrong units have been reported or that numbers
were transposed, but the provider is required to
grade the result as reported.

We feel the externalized program has progressed
greatly hi this past year, and are confident that the
program will continue to meet the  needs of the
certification community in the future.
   Lab Approval for the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation

REMINDER: Generally, laboratories certified by the state or primacy agency for compliance monitoring using
methods as specified in the UCMR regulation are concurrently granted approval to use those methods hi support
of UCMR monitoring requirements. Monitoring for perchlorate is an exception, requiring laboratories to obtain
formal EPA approval which is contingent on having passed the performance testing program which was offered
in the Spring and Fall of 2000.  Laboratories approved for perchlorate monitoring can be found listed at:
www.epa.gov/safewater/standard/ucmr/aprvlabs.html.

Later this year, a laboratory approval process is expected to be announced for monitoring under the Screening
Survey, List 2 microbiological contaminant Aeromonas.   This will include requirements for existing lab
certification using an approved coliform membrane filtration method as well as successful completion of an
Aeromonas performance testing study.

-------
                                NELAC  UPDATE
                               Jeanne Hankins, NELAP Director

EPA's National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (NELAP) announced the first group of 669
NELAP-accredited laboratories on January 24, 2001, which flags an end to a decades-long problem of non-
uniform state accreditation programs. The laboratory community petitioned the Agency in the early 90's to assist
in developing a solution to the multiple problems resulting from the lack of a national program, such as
inconsistent requirements, lack of reciprocity, and redundant on-site assessments and proficiency tests. The
announcement of these 669 laboratories is a strong beginning for a national program.  Although only eleven
states have adopted the standards, the laboratories represent a much larger cross section - 38 states/territories
and three foreign countries. Several hundred more laboratories are expected to become NELAP-accredited
before the end of the year. It is also expected that many more states will adopt the NELAC standards in the near
future. Names and contact information for the NELAP accredited laboratories are published on the National
Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference (NELAC) website (http://www.epa. gov/ttn/nelac).
   OTHER NELAC NEWS

   The NELAC Vli Interim Meeting was held in
Las Vegas in November 2000.  Henry Longest,
OKD, was the keynote speaker. He stated that EPA
will continue to support NELAC financially with
S500K funding annually. PBMS was also discussed
at the opening plenary session since NELAC is
trying to be sure its standards are compatible with
PBMS.   The Agency is working to come to a
consensus on the PBMS issue.

   Although two  pilot  basic assessor training
courses were held last year, NELAC has no definite
training program in place yet. It plans on the private
sector providing courses in  two areas:  1) basic
assessor training, and 2)  technical training.  The
purpose of the technical training will be to ensure
consistency of  technical knowledge among  the
assessors. The technical courses will assume a level
of basic knowledge  gained through previous
education and experience.  It will be up to the
individual Accrediting Authority to approve the
training for its assessors.

   NELAC's approach to "fields of testing" was
extensively discussed.  The Program Policy and
Structure Committee is working on various models
which could be used. (See the article on p. 6.)  At
this time the Office of Water will continue to
require that method be included to  meet DW
certification requirements.  There will be further
discussion on the subject at the annual meeting in
May in Salt Lake City.

NELAC VI voted to allow a laboratory to use a
single PT ampule for multiple methods.  It is the
opinion of OGWDW that if a  laboratory has two
methods running for a single contaminant, it is more
scientifically correct to analyze one ampule by one
method in the  first half of the year and a second
ampule by the second method in the second half of
the year.  This would allow the laboratory to meet
both NELAC and OGWDW requirements for PT
analysis in any year.

-------
 The NELAC Proficiency Testing
               Committee
    Barbara Burmeister, PT Committee Chair
 The NELAC Proficiency Testing (PT) Committee
has developed a PT program, which is an important
tool in the NELAC accreditation process. The PT
program evaluates a laboratory's performance under
controlled conditions relative to  a given  set of
criteria. NELAC PT samples are unknown samples
provided by an external source.  To assure the
quality, consistency, and availability of PT samples,
the PT Committee has developed standards that
cover three separate entities: 1) NELAC accredited
laboratories, 2) PT providers,  and 3)  oversight
bodies of the PT providers.  The goals  of the PT
program are the generation of data that  meets the
needs of environmental and regulatory programs, as
well as the improvement of the overall performance
of laboratories.   The committee has  carefully
constructed the standards to meet these  goals,
expanding them to be more inclusive and modifying
them as improvements are identified.

The NELAC PT standard and four appendices were
first ratified at NELAC m in July 1997. Since then,
the standard has evolved and four additional
appendices have been ratified.  The PT program
became operational when 11  state accrediting
authorities began accepting applications for NELAC
accreditation   in  1999.     Laboratories   must
successfully participate in two PT studies per year
for each PT field of testing.   The NELAC PT
Committee has established acceptance limits for a
large  number  of PT  fields  of  testing and is
continuing work to complete  the  task for the
remaining fields of testing.  A  current  list of all
available PT fields of testing is  posted on the
NELAC website.

The NELAC PT Committee  has  received many
comments  from  stakeholders regarding  data
reporting,  use  of corrective  action studies,  and
report  format.  A subcommittee of laboratories,
accrediting authorities and PT providers was formed
to address these issues and met in September 2000.
 Working groups were established and continue to
 meet to discuss each issue. Their feedback in the
 form of proposed language changes will be given to
 the NELAC PT Committee for consideration.

 Two   related  areas   generating  considerable
 discussion  are the laboratory field of testing for
 accreditation (program-method-analyte) and the PT
 field of testing (program-matrix-analyte). The PT
 Committee and the Program Policy and Structure
 Committee are evaluating a potential change to the
 two fields of testing. This issue was discussed at
 length during NELAC Vli and the committee is
 continuing discussions with the Program, Policy and
 Structure Committee regarding the  effect  of a
 change to  both  accrediting  authorities   and
 laboratories. The proposed standards are available
 for  your  review  on  the  NELAC  website
 (www.epa.gov/ttn/nelac).  Comments  on   any
 proficiency testing issues  are  always welcome.
 Please use the comment form posted on the NELAC
 website and   email  your comments to  Barb
 Burmeister, NELAC PT Committee Chairperson, at
 burmie@mail.slh.wisc.edu.
 Program Policy and Structure
              Committee
        Dr. Kenneth Jackson, NY DOH

This Committee is responsible for amendments and
interpretation of the Constitution and Bylaws and
Chapter 1 of the NELAC standards.  Chapter 1
describes the purpose and scope of NELAC, the
responsibilities of federal and state governments,
including  those  that  are  NELAP Accrediting
Authorities, the Board of Directors and committee
structure, the conduct of meetings, and the scope of
NELAC. This committee develops modifications to
the scope, structure and requirements to the "fields
of testing" and presents these to the participants for
approval.

   Laboratories are  accredited under NELAP for
"Fields  of  Testing"   (FOT),   comprising  the
combination of EPA Program — Method - Analyte.

-------
An FOT describes an individual accreditation, such
as "Clean Water Act - EPA 602 - Benzene".  The
Committee has been  charged to examine if this
accreditation structure continues to be appropriate
as the NELAC standards have evolved and the
needs  of federal and  state governments have
changed.  Accordingly, the Committee presented
several models for FOT at  the recent NELAC
Interim Meeting, and received input  from the
stakeholders.  From this input, a new accreditation
structure is being developed, based on Technology
- Matrix - Method - Analyte.  The inclusion of
Matrix   will  facilitate reciprocity   between
Accrediting Authorities, and a revised definition of
Method will facilitate the inclusion of Performance
Based Measurement Systems.  Revisions to Chapter
1, to incorporate these  fundamental changes in
accreditation, will be  presented to the Conference
for voting at NELAC 7 in May 2001.
      Rumors vs. Experience
         A NELAC Success Story
   Carl Kirchner, Florida Department of Health

Rumors abound that the National Environmental
Laboratory Accreditation Conference  (NELAC)
assessments have not been uniformly performed by
the 11 NELAP accrediting authorities.  From the
Florida Department of Health (DOH) perspective,
NELAC  has been taking  some unfair hits of
criticism lately in this arena. Florida DOH has had
the opportunity to observe laboratories accredited by
other NELAP accrediting authorities, in order to
bestow NELAP accreditation for fields of testing
that the other primary accrediting authority did not
offer.  First and foremost, the quality of NELAP
accreditation  program and the assessment process
according to consistent, consensus standards must
be affirmed.  In the case where one laboratory has
two primary  NELAP Accrediting Authorities for
different fields of testing, the laboratory was found
to be in such  good shape that it would have been a
complete waste of time to assess the same parts of
the quality system and fields of testing that the first
primary Accrediting Authority  already assessed.
We   should  be   encouraged  that   the
representativeness and comparability of the NELAC
accreditation  process,  particularly  in  on-site
assessments, appear to be working as intended.

There should not be an inordinate amount of time
placed into estimating the  proper  number of
man-days   needed  for  an  on-site  laboratory
assessment. NELAP Accrediting Authorities try to
make good estimates on how many  assessors to
send and how much time to spend at a laboratory.
But if a laboratory is in good shape, the on-site
assessment process goes much faster. It is when the
laboratory has problems that assessors must ask in-
depth, detailed questions, and review additional
records  so  that  the underlying causes  of the
laboratory problems can be found and the proper
NELAC Standards noted as deficiencies. This takes
a considerable amount of additional time and this
fact  has  not surfaced in  any of  the  rumors
circulating in regard to the time expended  in an
on-site assessment. For example, Florida DOH sent
a four-person assessment team on one trip because
the two  scheduled  laboratory facilities  seeking
NELAP  accreditation had  an  incredibly  huge
number of fields  of testing to assess.  Despite this
daunting task, we found one of the  laboratories to
be  in such  good  shape  that  the  four-person
assessment team did the entire assessment in one
day.  During the latest Florida  (pre-NELAC)
assessments the  assessors provided a lot of tips
about what to expect for NELAC. It was clear that
this  facility listened to the tips, and the quality
system was well-prepared.

Therefore, we are encouraged  by the  apparent
quality of the NELAP accreditation process and
have, confidence in  the  laboratories that  were
privileged to claim full  status in  January  2001.
Given the cost of accreditation fees and proficiency
test samples, the least we can do as a recognized
NELAP  Accrediting Authority is to ensure a
representative, comprehensive assessment of the
laboratory, assuring that a NELAC certificate will
convey national  recognition of a quality product
(namely,  the laboratory's environmental testing
services).

-------
    Chromogenic/Fluorogenic

           Substrate Tests

In the 4th Edition, March'97 Labcert Manual on
page V-13, QC 5.6.8, the language implies that
analysts need to prewarm samples to 35°C before
starting  the incubation  time.  This  was  never
necessary  for  the  Colilert  24-hour  test.   The
incubation  period  of 24  hours for Colilert®
includes the time it takes for the samples to reach
incubation temperature. This is based on both in-
house and outside evaluations.  Low levels of total
coliforms and E. coli will produce positives at 24
hours with Colilert without preheating. However,
Colilert®-18 P/A is an 18-22 hour test with the
samples requiring an initial pre-warming step in a
35°C or 44.5°C water bath to bring the sample up
to 35°C.

These are  the  incubation instructions
for the various  chromogenic/fluorogenic
substrate tests:	

1.  Colilert P/A and Colilert Quanti-Tray
    "The 24-hour incubation time for the Colilert
    24-hour test includes the time it takes to bring
    the sample temperature up to 35° C."

2,  Colilert-18 P/A
    "Prewarm hi 35°C water bath for 20 minutes
    or 44.5°C water bath for 7-10 minutes."

 3.  Colilert-18 Quanti-Tray and Colisure
    "Allow  sample  to  equilibrate  to   room
    temperature (20-30°C)."

 4.  Colisure
    "For  the  Colisure  test,  samples  must be
    incubated at 35°C ± 0.5°C for 24 hours. If an
     examination of the results at 24 hours is not
     convenient, then results may be examined at
     any time  between 24 and  48  hours.  If the
     medium  changes from a yellow color to a
     magenta color, the sample must be reported as
     total coliform positive."
  QC for New Micro Methods
     Stephanie Harris, USEPA Region 10

The December 1, 1999 CFR approved the use of
one new microbial growth media for use with
the Total Coliform Rule (TCR) and the Surface
Water Treatment  Rule (SWTR) and two new
media for approved use only with the TCR.  MI
Agar is approved for use in both regulations,
whereas  Ecolite  and  m-ColiBlue  24  are
approved for use only as presence/absence tests
and therefore are not approved for use in the
SWTR..   It  is  EPA's  intention that specific
quality control /  quality assurance  parameters
accompany these new procedures and to insert
this information into the next edition  of the
certification manual.  The following points are
proposed as interim quality control parameters
to be  followed  by  drinking  water  certified
laboratories.  These  parameters are similar to
those  required  in  current  and  previous
certification manuals for new methodologies or
growth media.

MI Agar and m-ColiBlue 24:  These are MF
procedures, so the following QC requirements
will apply:
 >  Media must be checked for appropriate pH
    and sterility.
 »•  MF sterility check  must be  conducted on
    each funnel in use at the beginning and the
    end of each filtration series by filtering 20 -
    30  mL   of dilution water through the
    membrane filter and testing for growth.  If
    the control indicates contamination, all data
    from affected samples must be rejected and
     an immediate re-sampling requested.   A
     filtration series  ends when 30 minutes  or
    more elapse between sample filtration.
 >•   Media controls must include a non-coliform
     organism, a total coliform organism, and E.
     coli at a minimum.
 >   Each lot of petri dishes should be checked
     for  autofluorescence  prior  to  use  (if
     applicable).

-------
      It is strongly recommended that confirmation
      broth be used to determine false positive/false
      negative rates for this method in individual
      laboratories and for individual matrices.  This
      may also  aid the analyst in identification of
      questionable colonies. Confirmation broths to
      be used are lactose broth and brilliant green
      lactose bile broth (BGLB) for total coliform
      confirmation and lactose broth and EC broth
      with  MUG   (EC/MUG)   for  E.   coli
      confirmation.  These confirmation steps  may
      be discontinued at a later date, but for  now
      their use is highly recommended.
          This  is  a  chromogenic/fluorogenic
 method developed by Charm Scientific and the
 following requirements will apply:

 >•   Each lot of test packets must be checked for
     sterility prior to use.
 >•   Each  lot  of  media  must be  checked for
     autofluorescence prior to use.
 >•   For each lot of media, a quality control check
     must  be  performed  by inoculating  sterile
     water   containing either  a  MUG-positive
     organism,  a MUG-negative coliform,  and  a
     non-coliform  organism into  each of three
     Ecolite packets and analyzing them.
 »•   The volume analyzed must be 100 mL ± 2.5
     mL. Due to the flexibility of plastic bags, it
     is unlikely that the marked line will meet the
     required sample  volume within  acceptable
     tolerances. Consequently, a sterile graduated
     cylinder or other calibrated  sample vessel
     must be used to complete the sample transfer.

 >•    Similar to the Colilert  format, the sample
     should not be collected  and analyzed in the
     same sample vessel.  This is not appropriate
     considering the type of  collection  vessel
    provided and the inherent volume inaccuracy
     associated with a plastic bag.  In addition,
    once  initially   collected,   under  no
    circumstances  should part of the sample be
    decanted,  either  in   the  field or  at the
    laboratory.     This  practice  changes  the
    bacterial  density  per  unit  volume  and
      contributes  to  inaccurate  bacteriological
      measurements.    Therefore,  a  separate
      collection vessel will be needed  that can
      hold a volume of 120 mL with adequate
      head space for proper sample mixing.
  *•    Similar to Colilert when it was new on the
      market, 5% of total coliform positive/ E.
      coli positive and total coliform positive/^1.
      coli negative samples should be confirmed
      using  standard  coliform  confirmation
      media. This should assist the laboratory in
      determining the false  positive and  false
      negative  rates  of  this media for  their
      laboratory and their particular matrices.


      Summary of the Final

  Radionuclides Regulation

 The  final rule for radionuclides was signed by
 the Administrator on November 21, 2000 and
 published in the Federal Register on December
 7, 2000.   This final regulatory action revises
 and amends 40 CFR Part 141 (National Primary
 Drinking Water  Regulations)  and  Part  142
 (National Primary Drinking  Water Regulations
 Implementation) and  includes  the  following
 elements:

 4  New MCLs,   MCLGs,  monitoring  and
    reporting  requirements  effective   on
    December 8, 2003.

 4  An MCLG of zero for all radionuclides.

 4  Maintains the  1976 gross  alpha particle
    MCL of 15 pCi/L (which includes radium-
    226 and excludes uranium and radon).

 4  Maintains the  1976 MCL of 5  pCi/L for
    combined radium-226 and -228.

 4  Maintains the 1976 beta particle and photon
    radioactivity MCL of 4 mrem/year.

4   Establishes an MCL of 30 |ig/L for uranium
    for community water systems.
8

-------
Requires separate  monitoring  requirements
for radium-226 and radium-228.

Maintains  the  beta  particle  and  photon
radioactivity screening levels set in the 1976
rule for vulnerable systems (as deemed by the
state).  Surface water systems serving greater
than 100,000  persons will no  longer be
required to monitor unless they are  deemed
vulnerable.

Revises    sampling,   compliance,   and
monitoring waivers to fit the Standardized
Monitoring Framework and requires sample
collection at entry points to the distribution
system.    States  will have discretion  in
grandfathering  existing  distribution system
data  for  determining  initial   monitoring
baselines.
4   Non-transient,   non-community   water
    systems   will   not  be  regulated  for
    radionuclides in drinking water at this tune
    (regulation will be considered under future
    regulatory review).

The currently approved methods are unchanged
by  the rule.  No methods  were  added  or
withdrawn.

It is expected that 0.5% of the nation's 54,000
CWSs will  need to take measures  to lower
radium  levels  in their drinking water  (~ 300
systems), and  slightly less than 1% of CWSs
will need to take measures to reduce uranium in
their  drinking  water  (~  500  systems). The
Federal Register notice and more information
are available  at  the  EPA Safewater website
(http ://www. epa. gov/safewater).
               Radiological  Drinking Water Contaminants,
                              MCLs, and Methods
Contaminant
Adjusted Gross Alpha
Beta Particle Emitters
radioactive Cesium
radioactive Iodine
radioactive
Strontium
89,90
tritium
gamma emitters
Radium-226
Radium-228
Uranium
MCL
15pCi/L
4 mr ede/yr
-
-
~
-
-
20pCi/L
20pCi/L
30ug/L
MCLG
zero
zero
-
-
™
-
-
zero
zero
zero
METHODS |
900.0, 302, 7110 B, C
900.0, 302, 7110 B
901.0, 901,1, 7500-Cs B, 7120, D
2459-72, D 3649-91
901.1 902.0,7500-1 B, C, D, 7120,
D 3649-91, D 4785-88
905.0, 303, 7500-Sr B
906.0, 306, 7500-3H B, D 4107-91
901.1, 902.0, 901.0, 7120, 7500-Cs
B, 7500-1 B, D3649-91, D 4785-88
903.0, 903.1, 7500-Ra C 304,305,
7500-Ra B, D3454-91, D2460-90
904.0, 7500-Ra D
908.0, 908.17500-U B, 7500-U C,
D2907-91, D3972-90, D5174-91

-------
    Confusion Regarding the
               80% Rule

 Controlling 21 VOCs and successfully analyzing
 a  PT  sample  containing  aU^OC  analytes
 annually is difficult.  RealizijEfThis, OGWDW
 allows  the Idjjjjjjsfy leewap in  the analysis of
 the VOC PX'samElgixExcluding vinyl chloride,
 if  the  l^orator>g|l§lbs  80%  of  the  VOC
 analytesjffi: can be^|tif|ed-Xo,r,all of the VOCs.
 The SOW rule for W^Cs^hp recently been made
        ffficult  to'^aSrpret  since  some  PT
              mclude5bfi[Ms in the same vial as
                                 apply to the
THMs if they
Currently they must b
                                     ampule.
 In  the M/DBP mle,Ro^^&|ojnC"effective  in
 January 2002, the 80^Pn|e_|ppJ^ to the DBF
 contaminants by classUtt- wa§ tffi^intent of the
 rule writers that all T
 chlorite be successful
the 80% rule would
there are four THMs
that only 75% of th
so the 80% rule c
all be successfully
contaminants. There
apply to the HAAs
must be successfMy_aji
all
                  an
  ^u vvcuj luer mieni 01 me
  3s,~lMA5, bromate and
      1  ":,d each year and
     tol5|h class.  Since
  ussing c^^vould mean
  mtaminantswere passed,
  apply.  Themu'ons must
lyzed as they ara individual
   , the 80% R^le can only
   'our of theftve HAASs
     ;ed to
                                  ertified for
The DBF Rule also means that if a laboratory
fails  one THM, it cannot  be certified for
TTHMs.    This is  a change  from  current
certification practice.
 Websites

      This publication and much more can be
      found on the Office of Ground Water and
      Drinking  Water   web   page  at
 http://www.epa.gov/safewater/standards.html
 This  site has information about drinking  water
 regulations, current and future, as well as a page
 for  lab  certification.  The  "Manual  for the
 Certification of Laboratories Analyzing Drinking
 Water,"  the errata sheets for this manual, past
 issues of the Labcert Bulletin and this issue can
 all easily be found at this address.
 The pertinent sections of the 2000 edition of the
 CFR   are   now   available    at
 http://www.epa.gov/safewater/regs.html.  While
 on the web site, you will see a new look for the
 homepage.  The new design will load faster and
 should make frequently-used info a bit easier to
 find.  Be sure to check the Topic Index (in the
 top right corner  of the homepage)  if you can't
 find what you're seeking. Also, the entire source
 water protection section has been reworked. It is
 at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/protect.html.

 Another website that you may find helpful is the
 NIST/NVLAP    website,
 http://ts.nist. gov/ts/htdocs/210/214/214.htm.
 The accredited PT providers are listed on this site
in  the   NVLAP  Directory   of  Accredited
Laboratories   under   the  field  of Chemical
Calibration: Providers of Proficiency Testing.
                                                       A Good Number to Have!
                                                         Safe Drinking Water Hotline:
                                                                (800) 426-4791
10

-------
   NEW METHODS MANUAL

NERL  and  OGWDW
have jointly published a
new  drinking   water
methods   manual,
"Methods  for   the
Determination  of  Organic  and  Inorganic
Compounds in Drinking Water," August 2000,
EPA  815-R-00-014.   Seven methods  for  the
analysis of organic compounds and four methods
for the analysis of  inorganic compounds  in
drinking water are contained in this  manual.
Many of these methods have either already been
approved   for  drinking   water  compliance
monitoring or for performing analysis required in
the  Unregulated  Contaminant  Monitoring
Regulation.   Other methods  included in this
manual  may  be  approved  for compliance
monitoring at a  future date or  are  useful  for
developing occurrence data.   Methods for  the
analysis of inorganic  and organic compounds
have been combined in this manual to facilitate
their timely publication. Most of these methods
are also available at the Office of Water website,
www.epa.gov/ogwdw/methods/sourcalt.html   or
at the  Office of Research and Development
website, www.epa.gov/nerlcwww/ordmeth.htm.

Methods in the Manual are:
EPA Method 300.1 - Determination of Inorganic
Anions   in  Drinking  Water  by  Ion
Chromatography.
EPA  Method  314.0   -  Determination   of
Perchlorate  in  Drinking   Water   by   Ion
Chromatography.
EPA Method 317.0 - Determination of Inorganic
Oxyhalide Disinfection By-products in Drinking
Water  Using Ion  Chromatography  with  the
Addition  of  a  Postcolumn Reagent for Trace
Bromate Analysis.
EPA Method 321.8 - Determination of Bromate
in Drinking  Waters  by  Ion Chromatography
Inductively  Coupled   Plasma   -  Mass
 Spectrometry.
EPA   Method  515.3   -  Determination  of
 Chlorinated  Acids  in   Drinking  Water   by
 Liquid-Liquid Extraction,  Derivatization and Gas
Chromatography  with  Electron   Capture
Detection.
EPA Method 526 - Determination of Selected
Semivolatile Organic Compounds in Drinking
Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Capillary
Column  Gas   Chromatography  /  Mass
Spectrometry (GC/MS).
EPA Method 528 - Determination of Phenols in
Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and
Capillary Column  Gas .Chromatography/Mass
Spectrometry (GC/MS).
EPA Method 532 - Determination of Phenylurea
Compounds in Drinking Water by Solid Phase
Extraction  and  High  Performance  Liquid
Chromatography with UV Detection.
EPA Method 549.2 - Determination of Diquat
and Paraquat in Drinking Water by Liquid-Solid
Extraction  and  High  Performance  Liquid
Chromatography with Ultraviolet Detection.
EPA Method 556 - Determination of Carbonyl
Compounds  in   Drinking  Water   by
Pentafluorobenzylhydroxylamine Derivatization
and Capillary  Gas Chromatography with Electron
Capture Detection.
EPA Method 556.1 - Determination of Carbonyl
Compounds in Drinking Water  by Fast  Gas
Chromatography

The manual is available from NTIS.  The NTIS
number is  PB2000-106981INZ and the cost is
$71.50.  NERL will continue to send it free of
charge to government entities and nonprofits.

    Annual Training for SDWA
 Laboratory Certification Officers

    The  Drinking   Water   Laboratory
Certification  Course  for  Chemistry will be
offered  on September 10-14, 2001 and the
Microbiology  Course   will  be  offered on
September 17-21,  2001  in Cincinnati,  Ohio.
Persons  whose  responsibilities  include  the
evaluation  of  laboratories analyzing potable
water  for  chemical  and   microbiological
parameter  should  contact   their   Regional
Certification   Officer  to   obtain  registration
information.
                                                     •it US. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 2001 650-101/400H

-------
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
Cincinnati, OH 45268

Official business
Penalty for Private Use: $300
PRESORTED STANDARD
 POSTAGE & FEES PAID
          EPA
   PERMIT No. G-35
EPA-815-N-01-002a

-------