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
------- |