Analytical Feasibility Support
            Document
    for the Six-Year Review of
Existing National Primary Drinking
       Water Regulations
(Reassessment of Feasibility for Chemical Contaminants)

-------
Office of Water
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (4607M)
EPA815-R-03-003
www.epa.gov/safewater
March 2003
                                          Printed on Recycled Paper

-------
                                                    EPA815-R-03-003
        Analytical Feasibility Support Document
                for the Six-Year Review of
Existing National Primary Drinking Water Regulations

        (Reassessment of Feasibility for Chemical Contaminants)
                           March 2003
              United States Environmental Protection Agency
                          Office of Water
                Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
                 Standards and Risk Management Division
                     Targeting and Analysis Branch
                 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (4607M)
                       Washington, DC 20460

-------
Acknowledgments

       The USEPA staff involved in the development and/or review of either all or portions of this
document include Wynne Miller, Ed Glick, Pat Churilla, Jeanne Campbell, Richard Reding, Barry
Lesnik, Terry Smith, Harry Allen, Judy Lebowich and Marc Parrotta.  EPA staff assisted in one of several
areas that included:

       (1) developing and/or reviewing the process used to assess whether the feasible limits have
              changed for a subset of the 68 chemical SDWA analytes under review;
       (2) review and comment on the preliminary results;
       (3) general QA/QC to verify that the approved analytical methods and the method detection limits
              listed for each contaminant was correct; and/or
       (4) writing and editorial review of portions of this document.

       Other USEPA staff (from EPA's Office of Research and Development) specifically involved in
the internal peer review included Jody Shoemaker, Ted Martin and Jim Odell. ORD staff peer reviewed
the draft document published in March of 2002 (EPA 815-D-02-002). This final version reflects their
comments.

       EPA acknowledges the National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC) Drinking Water
Committee for their recommendations on how EPA should review analytical feasibility.

       EPA also appreciates the technical support provided by The Cadmus Group, Inc, the prime
contractor for this project. Dr. George Hallberg served as the Cadmus project manager and major
contributions by Wendy Chou, Ashton Koo, Anne Isham and Susan Bjork are gratefully acknowledged.
Their support in the development of this document included documentation of approved analytical
methods and their MDLs, the analyses of the Water Supply Data, the development of the graphs and
tables,  a large portion of the writing in the results section, and general QA/QC of the analyses and the
document.
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review       ii                          Final - March 2003

-------
                                   Executive Summary

    The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), as amended in 1996, requires the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to review and revise, if appropriate, existing National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations (NPDWRs).  As part of the review, EPA developed a protocol document (entitled EPA
Protocol for the Review of Existing National Primary Drinking Water Regulations} to describe the
process and strategy for regulatory review that EPA used to meet its statutory requirement. EPA
developed the protocol based on recommendations from the National Drinking Water Advisory Council
(NDWAC), through internal Agency deliberations, and through discussions with the diverse stakeholders
involved in drinking water and its protection.  Based on the NDWAC recommendations, EPA's review
included the consideration of five key elements, as appropriate: health effects, analytical and treatment
feasibility,  implementation-related issues, occurrence and exposure, and economic impacts.  The purpose
of the analytical methods  feasibility analysis was to determine whether changes in the practical
quantitation level (PQL) were  possible in those instances where the Maximum Contaminant Level is
limited, or might be limited, by analytical feasibility. This document, "Analytical Feasibility Support
Document for the Six-Year Review of Existing National Primary Drinking Water Regulations:
Reassessment of Feasibility for Chemical Contaminants" describes the process recommended by
NDWAC and used by EPA to  address the analytical feasibility aspect of the current (1996-2002) Six-
Year Review.

    To be consistent with the accepted policy and procedures used by EPA to derive quantitation levels
for drinking water contaminants, the Six-Year Review focused on the process that has been used by the
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water for many years. Historically, EPA's OGWDW used two
main approaches to determine  practical quantitation levels (PQLs) for SDWA analytes.  One approach
(and the preferred approach) used data from Water Supply (WS) Performance Evaluation (PE) studies.
Although the primary use of the WS-PE data was for EPA's laboratory certification, the data were also
used as a secondary data source for many years to develop PQLs when the spike concentrations were in
the appropriate concentration range.  The derivation of the PQL using WS data involved determining the
concentration of an analyte at which 75 percent of EPA Regional and State laboratories  achieved results
within a specified range around the spike value. In the absence of WS data, the other approach that EPA
used was the MDL multiplier method. In this  approach, the PQL was calculated by multiplying the EPA-
derived MDL by a factor of 5 or 10.  The MDL multiplier method was mostly used in the early years of
rule development for NPDWRs when insufficient WS data were available.  Once sufficient WS data
became available, most of the  PQLs developed using the MDL multiplier were validated using WS data.

    For the Six-Year analytical feasibility review, EPA focused on assessing whether the practical
quantitation limit has changed since promulgation for a subset of the 68 chemical NPDWRs. EPA
performed the analytical feasibility analysis for a total of 40 NPDWRs that fell into one of two categories:

     *•          First, for those contaminants where the MCL is currently limited by analytical feasibility
               (i.e., the MCL is set at the PQL) and the MCLG is still appropriate, EPA evaluated the
               currently approved methods for those contaminants and available WS data to determine
               whether it might be possible to lower the PQL and hence set an MCL that is closer to the
               MCLG.

     *•          The second circumstance under which EPA re-evaluated the PQL was for contaminants
               identified under the Six-Year health effects technical review as having potential changes
               to their MCLG.  Because the information for the health effects review was not completely


Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review       iii                          Final - March 2003

-------
               available at the time the analytical methods analysis began, EPA took a broad-brush
               approach and included a number of contaminants that may not have needed a
               reassessment of their analytical feasibility.

    For each of these 40 chemical NPDWRs, the analytical feasibility reassessment included:

    (1) a methods comparison step to help identify whether the ability to detect (and therefore quantify)
               these contaminants at lower levels has increased;

    (2) a methods usage over time step to identify the analytical methods that appear to be the most
               widely used for the analysis of particular contaminants.

    (3) a Water Supply data analysis step to determine if a PQL can be recalculated (if sufficient WS
               information is available) or if there is an indication that a PQL may be lower using the
               available information.

    The results of these three steps aided in assessing whether a PQL might change for a specific
contaminant and, if so, estimating what the new PQL might be.

    The results of Six-Year analytical feasibility review concluded that the majority of the available WS
data were insufficient to actually recalculate the PQL for many of the 40 contaminants of interest.  The
data were considered insufficient because either the true value of the spike concentrations used in the WS
studies were above the concentration of interest and/or the percentages of labs passing exceeded the 75
percent criterion used to calculate a PQL.  However, for many of the 40 contaminants, the available data
were sufficient to indicate whether the PQL might change or if the current PQL is still appropriate. Of the
40 NPDWRs evaluated, the available information indicates that the PQL for 25 might possibly be  lower.
The PQL for the remaining 15 appears to still be appropriate. For the 25 analytes where the WS data
indicate that a  lower PQL may exist, EPA used the information about method usage over time, the MDLs
for these methods, and the 10 x MDL multiplier to estimate what the potentially lower PQL might be.
This estimated value was used as a threshold value in the occurrence and exposure analyses to determine
whether an improvement in public health protection might be possible if EPA were to consider gathering
more definitive data to recalculate the PQL and possibly  lower the MCL.
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review       iv                          Final - March 2003

-------
                                     Table of Contents

Acknowledgments 	  ii

Executive Summary	iii

List of Tables	xiii

List of Figures 	  xv

I.  Introduction	  1

II. Background	  1
   A.        What is the Relationship Between SDWA Requirements and Analytical Methods?  ...  1
   B.        How Have PQLs Been Determined in the Past for SDWA Contaminants? 	  3
              1.      How Were Water Supply Studies Conducted?	  3
              2.      What Criteria Are Used to Determine a PQL? 	  4

III.           How Did EPA Identify Which Contaminants to Evaluate for a PQL Reassessment? ...  5

IV.           What Approaches Were Used to Reassess the PQLs of Contaminants Identified by the
              Six-Year Review Process?	  8

V. Results of the PQL Reassessment	  11

Alachlor	  11
   Results of the Method Comparison	  11
   Results of the Analysis of the WS Data  	  12
              a.      Method Usage Over Time	  12
              b.      Results of the PQL Analysis	  12
   Conclusion for Alachlor  	  14

Benzene 	  14
   Results of the Method Comparison	  14
   Results of the Analysis of the WS Data  	  15
              a.      Method Usage Over Time	  15
              b.      Results of the PQL Analysis	  16
   Conclusion for Benzene  	  17

Benzo(a)pyrene 	  18
   Results of the Method Comparison	  18
   Results of the WS Data Analysis	  18
              a.      Method Usage Over Time	  18
              b.      Results of the PQL Analysis	  19
   Conclusion for Benzo(a)pyrene	  20

Beryllium	  21
   Results of the Method Comparison	  21


Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review       V                         Final - March 2003

-------
    Results of the Analysis of the WS Data  	  22
              a.      Method Usage Over Time	  22
              b.      Results of the PQL Analysis	  23
    Conclusion for Beryllium 	  25

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate	  25
    Results of the Method Comparison	  25
    Results of the Analysis of the WS Data  	  26
              a.      Method Usage Over Time	  26
              b.      Results of the PQL Analysis	  27
    Conclusion for Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate	  29

Cadmium  	  29
    Results of the Method Comparison	  29
    Results of the Analysis of the WS Data  	  30
              a.      Method Usage Over Time	  30
              b.      Results of the PQL Analysis	  31
    Conclusion for Cadmium	  32

Carbofuran	  33
    Results of the Method Comparison	  33
    Results of the Analysis of the WS Data  	  33
              a.      Method Usage Over Time	  33
              b.      Results of the PQL Analysis	  34
    Conclusion for Carbofuran  	  35

Carbon Tetrachloride	  36
    Results of the Method Comparison	  36
    Results of the Analysis of the WS Data  	  36
              a.      Method Usage Over Time	  36
              b.      Results of the PQL Analysis	  37
    Conclusion for Carbon Tetrachloride  	  38

Chlordane	  39
    Results of the Method Comparison	  39
    Results of the Analysis of the WS Data  	  40
              a.      Method Usage Over Time	  40
              b.      Results of the PQL Analysis	  40
    Conclusion for Chlordane 	  41

Chromium  	  42
    Results of the Method Comparison	  42
    Results of the Analysis of the WS Data  	  43
              a.      Method Usage Over Time	  43
              b.      Results of the PQL Analysis	  44
    Conclusion for Chromium	  45
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review       vi                         Final - March 2003

-------
l,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP)	 45
    Results of the Method Comparison	 45
    Results of the Analysis of the WS Data  	 46
              a.      Method Usage Over Time	 46
              b.      Results of the PQL Analysis	 47
    Conclusion for DBCP 	 48

1,4-Dichlorobenzene  	 48
    Results of the Method Comparison	 48
    Results of the Analysis of the WS Data  	 49
              a.      Method Usage Over Time	 49
              b.      Results of the PQL Analysis	 50
    Conclusion for 1,4-Dichlorobenzene	 51

1,2-Dichloroethane	 52
    Results of the Method Comparison	 52
    Results of the Analysis of the WS Data  	 53
              a.      Method Usage Over Time	 53
              b.      Results of the PQL Analysis	 53
    Conclusion for 1,2-Dichloroethane	 54

1,1-Dichloroethylene	 55
    Results of the Method Comparison	 55
    Results of the Analysis of the WS Data  	 56
              a.      Method Usage Over Time	 56
              b.      Results of the PQL Analysis	 56
    Conclusion for 1,1-Dichloroethylene  	 58

Dichloromethane (methylene chloride)  	 58
    Results of the Method Comparison	 58
    Results of the Analysis of the WS Data  	 59
              a.      Method Usage Over Time	 59
              b.      Results of the PQL Analysis	 60
    Conclusion for Dichloromethane	 61

1,2-Dichloropropane  	 61
    Results of the Method Comparison	 61
    Results of the Analysis of the WS Data  	 62
              a.      Method Usage Over Time	 62
              b.      Results of the PQL Analysis	 63
    Conclusion for 1,2-Dichloropropane	 64

2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dioxin)  	 64
    Results of the Method Comparison	 64
    Results of the Analysis of the WS Data  	 65
    Conclusion	 65
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review       vii                         Final - March 2003

-------
Diquat	  65
    Results of the Method Comparison	  65
    Results of the Analysis of the WS Data  	  66
              a.      Method Usage Over Time	  66
              b.      Results of the PQL Analysis	  67
    Conclusion for Diquat	  68

Ethylene Dibromide	  68
    Results of the Method Comparison	  68
    Results of the Analysis of the WS Data  	  69
              a.      Method Usage Over Time	  69
              b.      Results of the PQL Analysis	  70
    Conclusion for Ethylene Dibromide  	  71

Fluoride  	  72
    Results of the Method Comparison	  72
    Results of the Analysis of the WS Data  	  73
              a.      Method Usage Over Time	  73
              b.      Results of the PQL Analysis	  74
    Conclusion for Fluoride	  76

Glyphosate	  76
    Results of the Method Comparison	  76
    Results of the Analysis of the WS Data  	  77
              a.      Method Usage Over Time	  77
              b.      Results of the PQL Analysis	  78
    Conclusion for Glyphosate  	  79

Heptachlor 	  79
    Results of the Method Comparison	  79
    Results of the Analysis of the WS Data  	  80
              a.      Method Usage Over Time	  80
              b.      Results of the PQL Analysis	  81
    Conclusion for Heptachlor  	  83

Heptachlor Epoxide	  83
    Results of the Method Comparison	  83
    Results of the Analysis of the WS Data  	  84
              a.      Method Usage Over Time	  84
              b.      Results of the PQL Analysis	  85
    Conclusion for Heptachlor Epoxide  	  87

Hexachlorobenzene  	  87
    Results of the Method Comparison	  87
    Results of the Analysis of the WS Data  	  88
              a.      Method Usage Over Time	  88
              b.      Results of the PQL analysis 	  89
    Conclusion for Hexachlorobenzene	  90
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review      viii                        Final - March 2003

-------
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene	 91
    Results of the Method Comparison	 91
    Results of the Analysis of the WS Data  	 92
              a.      Method Usage Over Time	 92
              b.      Results of the PQL Analysis	 92
    Conclusion for Hexachlorocyclopentadiene  	 94

Mercury  	 94
    Results of the Method Comparison	 94
    Results of the Analysis of the WS Data  	 95
              a.      Method Usage Over Time	 95
              b.      Results of the PQL Analysis	 96
    Conclusion for Mercury  	 98

Methoxychlor	 98
    Results of the Method Comparison	 98
    Results of the Analysis of the WS Data  	 99
              a.      Method Usage Over Time	 99
              b.      Results of the PQL Analysis	 100
    Conclusion for Methoxychlor	 101

Oxamyl	 102
    Results of the Method Comparison	 102
    Results of the Analysis of the WS Data  	 103
              a.      Method Usage Over Time	 103
              b.      Results of the PQL Analysis	 103
    Conclusion for Oxamyl	 107

PCBs  	 107
    Results of the Method Comparison	 107
    Results of the Analysis of the WS Data  	 108
              a.      Method Usage Over Time	 108
              b.      Results of the PQL Analysis	 108
    Conclusion for PCBs	 109

Pentachlorophenol 	 110
    Results of the Method Comparison	 110
    Results of the Analysis of the WS Data  	 Ill
              a.      Method Usage Over Time	 Ill
              b.      Results of the PQL Analysis	 112
    Conclusion for Pentachlorophenol  	 113
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review      ix                         Final - March 2003

-------
Picloram	 114
    Results of the Method Comparison	 114
    Results of the Analysis of the WS Data  	 115
              a.      Method Usage Over Time	 115
              b.      Results of the PQL Analysis	 115
    Conclusion for Picloram 	 116

Tetrachloroethylene	 117
    Results of the Method Comparison	 117
    Results of the Analysis of the WS Data  	 118
              a.      Method Usage Over Time	 118
              b.      Results of the PQL Analysis	 119
    Conclusion for Tetrachloroethylene  	 120

Thallium	 121
    Results of the Method Comparison	 121
    Results of the Analysis of the WS Data  	 122
              a.      Method Usage Over Time	 122
              b.      Results of the PQL Analysis	 122
    Conclusion for Thallium	 124

Toluene  	 124
    Results of the Method Comparison	 124
    Results of the Analysis of the WS Data  	 125
              a.      Method Usage Over Time	 125
              b.      Results of the PQL Analysis	 126
    Conclusion for Toluene	 127

Toxaphene 	 127
    Results of the Method Comparison	 127
    Results of the Analysis of the WS Data  	 128
              a.      Method Usage Over Time	 128
              b.      Results of the PQL Analysis	 129
    Conclusion for Toxaphene  	 131
1,1,1-Trichloroethane	 131
    Results of the Method Comparison	 131
    Results of the Analysis of the WS Data  	 132
              a.      Method Usage Over Time	 132
              b.      Results of the PQL Analysis	 133
    Conclusion for 1,1,1-Trichloroethane	 134
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review       X                         Final - March 2003

-------
1,1,2-Trichloroethane	  135
    Results of the Method Comparison	  135
    Results of the Analysis of the WS Data  	  136
              a.      Method Usage Over Time	  136
              b.      Results of the PQL analysis  	  137
    Conclusion for 1,1,2-Trichloroethane	  138

Trichloroethylene	  139
    Results of the Method Comparison	  139
    Results of the Analysis of the WS Data  	  140
              a.      Method Usage Over Time	  140
              b.      Results of the PQL Analysis	  140
    Conclusion for Trichloroethylene 	  142

Vinyl Chloride	  142
    Results of the Method Comparison	  142
    Results of the Analysis of the WS Data  	  143
              a.      Method Usage Over Time	  143
              b.      Results of the PQL Analysis	  144
    Conclusion for Vinyl Chloride  	  145

Xylenes (total) 	  146
    Results of the Method Comparison	  146
    Results of the Analysis of the WS Data  	  147
              a.      Method Usage Over Time	  147
              b.      Results of the PQL Analysis	  147
    Conclusion for Xylenes (total)  	  148

VI.           Conclusion	  149

References 	  152

Appendix A 	 A-l

Appendix B 	 B-l
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review       xi                         Final - March 2003

-------

-------
                                     List of Tables

Table 1.   SDWA Chemical Contaminants Undergoing Analytical Methods/PQL
          Reassessment	7
Table 2.   Results of the Analytical Methods Comparison for Alachlor	11
Table 3.   Evaluation of Alachlor Data from WS Studies  	13
Table 4.   Results of the Analytical Methods Comparison for Benzene 	14
Table 5.   Evaluation of Benzene Data from WS Studies  	16
Table 6.   Results of the Analytical Methods Comparison for Benzo(a)pyrene 	18
Table 7.   Evaluation of PE Data for Benzo(a)pyrene from WS Studies	19
Table 8.   Results of the Analytical Methods Comparison for Beryllium	22
Table 9.   Evaluation of Beryllium Data from WS Studies	23
Table 10.  Results of the Analytical Methods Comparison for Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate .... 26
Table 11.  Evaluation of Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate Data from WS Studies	27
Table 12.  Results of the Analytical Methods Comparison for Cadmium  	30
Table 13.  Evaluation of Cadmium Data from WS Studies  	31
Table 14.  Results of the Analytical Methods Comparison for Carbofuran	33
Table 15.  Evaluation of Carbofuran Data from WS Studies 	34
Table 16.  Results of the Analytical Methods Comparison for Carbon Tetrachloride	36
Table 17.  Evaluation of Carbon Tetrachloride Data from WS Studies  	38
Table 18.  Results of the Analytical Methods Comparison for Chlordane	39
Table 19.  Evaluation of Chlordane Data from WS Studies	41
Table 20.  Results of the Analytical Methods Comparison for Chromium  	42
Table 21.  Evaluation of Chromium Data from WS Studies	44
Table 22.  Results of the Analytical Methods Comparison for DBCP   	46
Table 23.  Evaluation of DBCP Data from WS Studies	47
Table 24.  Results of the Analytical Methods Comparison for 1,4-Dichlorobenzene  	49
Table 25.  Evaluation of 1,4-Dichlorobenzene Data from WS Studies  	51
Table 26.  Results of the Analytical Methods Comparison for 1,2-Dichloroethane	52
Table 27.  Evaluation of 1,2-Dichloroethane Data from WS Studies	54
Table 28.  Results of the Analytical Methods Comparison for 1,1-Dichloroethylene	55
Table 29.  Evaluation of 1,1-Dichloroethylene Data from WS Studies  	57
Table 30.  Results of the Analytical Methods Comparison for Dichloromethane 	58
Table 31.  Evaluation of Dichloromethane Data from WS Studies  	60
Table 32.  Results of the Analytical Methods Comparison for 1,2-Dichloropropane  	61
Table 33.  Evaluation of 1,2-Dichloropropane Data from WS Studies	63
Table 34.  Results of the Analytical Methods Comparison for 2,3,7,8-TCDD	64
Table 35.  Results of the Analytical Methods Comparison for Diquat	65
Table 36.  Evaluation of Diquat Data from WS Studies	68
Table 37.  Results of the Analytical Methods Comparison for Ethylene Dibromide	69
Table 38.  Evaluation of Ethylene Dibromide Data from WS Studies	71
Table 39.  Results of the Analytical Methods Comparison for Fluoride 	72
Table 40.  Evaluation of Fluoride Data from WS Studies  	75
Table 41.  Results of the Analytical Methods Comparison for Glyphosate	77
Table 42.  Evaluation of Glyphosate Data from WS Studies 	79
Table 43.  Results of the Analytical Methods Comparison for Heptachlor 	80
Table 44.  Evaluation of Heptachlor Data from WS Studies  	82
Table 45.  Results of the Analytical Methods Comparison for Heptachlor Epoxide	83
Table 46.  Evaluation of Heptachlor Epoxide Data from WS Studies  	86
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
Xlll
Final - March 2003

-------
Table 47.  Results of the Analytical Methods Comparison for Hexachlorobenzene 	88
Table 48.  Evaluation of Hexachlorobenzene Data from WS Studies  	90
Table 49.  Results of the Analytical Methods Comparison for Hexachlorocyclopentadiene ... 91
Table 50.  Evaluation of Hexachlorocyclopentadiene Data from WS Studies	93
Table 51.  Results of the Analytical Methods Comparison for Mercury 	95
Table 52.  Evaluation of Mercury Data from WS Studies  	97
Table 53.  Results of the Analytical Methods Comparison for Methoxychlor	99
Table 54.  Evaluation of Methoxychlor Data from WS Studies   	100
Table 55.  Results of the Analytical Methods Comparison for Oxamyl	102
Table 56.  Evaluation of Oxamyl Data from WS Studies	104
Table 57.  Regression Results for Oxamyl	105
Table 58.  Results of the Analytical Methods Comparison for PCBs	108
Table 59.  Evaluation of PCBs Data from WS Studies	109
Table 60.  Results of the Analytical Methods Comparison for Pentachlorophenol 	110
Table 61.  Evaluation of Pentachlorophenol Data from WS Studies  	112
Table 62.  Results of the Analytical Methods Comparison for Picloram	114
Table 63.  Evaluation of Picloram Data from WS Studies	116
Table 64.  Results of the Analytical Methods Comparison for Tetrachloroethylene 	117
Table 65.  Evaluation of Tetrachloroethylene Data from WS Studies  	120
Table 66.  Results of the Analytical Methods Comparison for Thallium	121
Table 67.  Evaluation of Thallium Data from WS Studies	123
Table 68.  Analytical Methods Comparison for Toluene 	124
Table 69.  Evaluation of Toluene Data from WS Studies	126
Table 70.  Results of the Analytical Methods Comparison for Toxaphene  	127
Table 71.  Evaluation of Toxaphene Data from WS Studies	130
Table 72.  Results of the Analytical Methods Comparison for 1,1,1-Trichloroethane	131
Table 73.  Evaluation of 1,1,1-Trichloroethane Data from WS Studies	134
Table 74.  Results of the Analytical Methods Comparison for 1,1,2-Trichloroethane	135
Table 75.  Evaluation of 1,1,2-Trichloroethane Data from WS Studies	138
Table 76.  Results of the Analytical Methods Comparison for Trichloroethylene	139
Table 77.  Evaluation of Trichloroethylene Data from WS Studies	141
Table 78.  Results of the Analytical Methods Comparison for Vinyl Chloride  	142
Table 79.  Evaluation of Vinyl Chloride Data from WS Studies  	145
Table 80.  Analytical Methods Comparison for Xylenes	146
Table 81.  Evaluation of Xylenes (total) Data from WS Studies  	148
Table 82.  Summary of Results from the Methods Comparison and WS Analysis 	150
Table 83.  Estimated PQLs Based on Method Usage and 10 x MDL Multiplier	  A-2
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
XIV
                          Final - March 2003

-------
                                        List of Figures

Figure 1.  Overview of the Protocol for the Revise/Not Revise Decision with a Focus on Where
    Analytical Feasibility was Re-evaluated	  6
Figure 2.  Distribution of Analytical Techniques by WS Study: Alachlor	  12
Figure 3.  Distribution of Analytical Techniques by WS Study: Benzene	  15
Figure 4.  Two-part Distribution of Benzene WS Data 	  17
Figure 5.  Distribution of Analytical Techniques by WS Study: Benzo(a)pyrene  	  19
Figure 6.  PQL Evaluation from PE WS Data: Benzo(a)pyrene	  20
Figure 7.  Distribution of Analytical Techniques by WS Study: Beryllium	  23
Figure 8.  Two-part Distribution of Beryllium WS Data:	  25
Figure 9.  Distribution of Analytical Techniques by WS Study: Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate  	  27
Figure 10. Two-part Distribution of Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate WS Data  	  29
Figure 11. Distribution of Analytical Techniques by WS  Study: Cadmium  	  31
Figure 12. Distribution of Analytical Techniques by WS  Study: Carbofuran 	  34
Figure 13. Distribution of Analytical Techniques by WS  Study: Carbon Tetrachloride 	  37
Figure 14. Distribution of Analytical Techniques by WS  Study: Chlordane	  40
Figure 15. Distribution of Analytical Techniques by WS  Study: Chromium	  44
Figure 16. Distribution of Analytical Techniques by WS  Study: DBCP 	  47
Figure 17. Distribution of Analytical Techniques by WS  Study: 1,4-Dichlorobenzene	  50
Figure 18. Distribution of Analytical Techniques by WS  Study: 1,2-Dichloroethane	  53
Figure 19. Distribution of Analytical Techniques by WS  Study: 1,1-Dichloroethylene 	  56
Figure 20. Distribution of Analytical Techniques by WS  Study: Dichloromethane  	  59
Figure 21. Distribution of Analytical Techniques by WS  Study: 1,2-Dichloropropane	  62
Figure 22. Distribution of Analytical Techniques by WS  Study: Diquat	  67
Figure 23. Distribution of Analytical Techniques by WS  Study: Ethylene Dibromide 	  70
Figure 24. Distribution of Analytical Techniques by WS  Study: Fluoride	  74
Figure 25. Distribution of Analytical Techniques by WS  Study: Glyphosate 	  78
Figure 26. Distribution of Analytical Techniques by WS  Study: Heptachlor 	  81
Figure 27. Distribution of Analytical Techniques by WS  Study: Heptachlor Epoxide 	  85
Figure 28. Distribution of Analytical Techniques by WS  Study: Hexachlorobenzene 	  89
Figure 29. Distribution of Analytical Techniques by WS  Study: Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 	  92
Figure 30. Distribution of Analytical Techniques by WS  Study: Mercury  	  96
Figure 31. Distribution of Analytical Techniques by WS  Study: Methoxychlor	  100
Figure 32. Distribution of Analytical Techniques by WS  Study: Oxamyl	  103
Figure 33. PQL Evaluation of PE WS Data: Oxamyl	  106
Figure 34. Two-part Distribution of Oxamyl WS Data 	  107
Figure 35. Distribution of Analytical Techniques by WS  Study: Pentachlorophenol  	  Ill
Figure 36. Evaluation of PE WS Data: Pentachlorophenol  	  113
Figure 37. Distribution of Analytical Techniques by WS  Study: Picloram  	  115
Figure 38. Distribution of Analytical Techniques by WS  Study: Tetrachloroethylene 	  119
Figure 39. Distribution of Analytical Techniques by WS  Study: Thallium   	  122
Figure 40. Distribution of Analytical Techniques by WS  Study: Toluene	  125
Figure 41. Distribution of Analytical Techniques by WS  Study: Toxaphene 	  129
Figure 42. Distribution of Analytical Techniques by WS  Study: 1,1,1-Trichloroethane	  133
Figure 43. Distribution of Analytical Techniques by WS  Study: 1,1,2-Trichloroethane	  137
Figure 44. Distribution of Analytical Techniques by WS  Study: Trichloroethylene	  140
Figure 45. Distribution of Analytical Techniques by WS  Study: Vinyl Chloride  	  144


Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review       XV                         Final - March 2003

-------
Figure 46.  Distribution of Analytical Techniques by WS Study: Xylenes (total)  	  147
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review       xvi                          Final - March 2003

-------
                     Analytical Feasibility Support Document for the
        Six-Year Review of Existing National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
                  (Reassessment of Feasibility for Chemical Contaminants)

I.   Introduction

    The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), as amended in 1996, requires the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to review and revise, if appropriate, existing National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs).  As part of the review, EPA developed a protocol
document (EPA Protocol for the Review of Existing National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations) that describes the process and strategy EPA used to review existing NPDWRs in
order to meet its statutory requirement. EPA developed the protocol document based on
recommendations from the National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC), through
internal Agency deliberations, and through discussions with the diverse stakeholders involved in
drinking water and its protection. To more efficiently utilize limited resources, EPA performed a
series of analyses that were intended to target those NPDWRs that are the most appropriate
candidates for revision. As part of the review, and where appropriate, EPA reviewed the
following key technical elements to make decisions regarding regulatory changes: health risks
assessments; technology assessments (analytical feasibility  and treatment technology); other
regulatory revisions (e.g., monitoring and reporting); occurrence and exposure analyses; and
available economic information. This document discusses the analytical  feasibility aspect of the
current (1996-2002) Six-Year Review.

    The 1999-2002 Six-Year Review includes the review of 68 chemical NPDWRs promulgated
prior to the 1996 SDWA Amendments. Because the analytical measurement feasibility may
have been the limiting factor in setting the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for some of the
existing NPDWRs or because the health effects reviews may indicate  a potential change in the
MCLG, this report examines the reassessment of analytical  methods capabilities including a
reassessment of whether the Practical Quantitation Levels (PQLs) may have changed since
promulgation. The PQL is generally defined as "the lowest level that can be reliably achieved
within specified limits of precision and accuracy during routine laboratory operating conditions"
(50 FR 46906, November 13, 1985).  The purpose of this support document is to:

    •   provide background information on the relationship between SDWA requirements and
       the analytical methods feasibility;
    •   describe how PQLs have historically been determined;
    •   and describe the process used to identify which of the 68 chemical NPDWRs under the
       1996-2002 review are subject to a further assessment with regards to analytical methods
       capabilities and a reassessment of the PQL.
II.  Background

A.  What is the Relationship Between SDWA Requirements and Analytical Methods?

    The SDWA [§1401(l)(C)(i); 42 U.S.C. § 300f(l)(C)(i)] states that an MCL for a national
primary drinking water regulation is set "if, in the judgment of the Administrator, it is
economically and technologically feasible to ascertain the level of such contaminant in water in
public water systems." According to SDWA, NPDWRs include "criteria and procedures to


Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review       1                        Final - March 2003

-------
assure a supply of drinking water which dependably complies with such maximum contaminant
levels; including accepted methods of quality control and testing procedures to insure
compliance with such levels" [§1401(1)(D); 42 U.S.C. § 300f(l)(D)].  Except in certain
circumstances, EPA is to set the MCL as close to the Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
(MCLG) as is feasible with the best available technologies (Section 1412 (b)(4)(B)). The MCLs
for several SDWA contaminants were set due to the limits of the analytical feasibility at that
time.  Since the promulgation of pre-1996 SDWANPDWRs, newer analytical methods and
updated methods for measuring SDWA contaminants have been approved. The approval of
newer analytical techniques may have provided laboratories with the analytical capability to
measure some  contaminants at lower levels. In addition, some laboratories may have improved
in their ability  to measure at lower levels using the same methods that were originally
promulgated.

   In considering analytical methods for use in compliance monitoring, EPA evaluates the
overall sensitivity of the techniques.  In previous regulations, EPA used two measures of
analytical capability, the Method Detection Limit (MDL) and the Practical Quantitation Level
(PQL).

>  The MDL is a measure of method sensitivity. The MDL is defined at 40 CFR Part 136
   Appendix B as "the  minimum concentration of a substance that can be reported with 99%
   confidence that the analyte concentration is greater than zero." MDLs can be operator,
   method, laboratory,  and matrix-specific. Due to normal day-to-day and run-to-run analytical
   variability,  MDLs may not be reproducible within a laboratory  or between laboratories. The
   regulatory  significance of the MDL is that EPA uses the MDL to determine when a
   contaminant is deemed to be detected and it can be used to calculate a PQL for that
   contaminant.

*•  In the preamble to a November 13, 1985 rulemaking (50 FR 46906), the PQL was defined as
   "the lowest concentration of an analyte that can be reliably measured within specified limits
   of precision and accuracy during routine laboratory operating conditions."  The Agency has
   used the PQL to estimate or evaluate the minimum concentration at which most laboratories
   can be expected to reliably measure a specific chemical contaminant during day-to-day
   analyses of drinking water samples. The PQL is a means of integrating information on the
   performance of the approved analytical methods into the development of a drinking water
   regulation (52 FR 25699, July 8, 1987).  The PQL incorporates the following (50 FR 46880,
   November  13, 1985; 52 FR 25690, July 8, 1987; 54 FR 22062,  May 22, 1989):

       •   quantitation,
       •   precision and bias,
       •   normal operations of a laboratory, and
       •   the  fundamental need to have a sufficient number of laboratories available to conduct
          compliance monitoring analyses.
       •
   In some cases, the quantitation limit for a particular analyte may have been the limiting
factor in the determination of the MCL for that analyte. This could be especially true for
contaminants with MCLGs of zero.  Also, there are several SDWA contaminants with non-zero
MCLGs that have their MCL set at the PQL.
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review       2                       Final - March 2003

-------
B. How Have PQLs Been Determined in the Past for SDWA Contaminants?

   Historically, EPA's OGWDW used two main approaches to determine a PQL for SDWA
analytes. One approach (and the preferred approach) used data from Water Supply (WS)
Performance Evaluation (PE) studies. Although the primary use of the WS-PE data was for
EPA's laboratory certification, the data were also used as a secondary data source for many years
to develop PQLs when the spike concentrations were in the appropriate concentration range. The
derivation of the PQL using WS data involved determining the concentration of an analyte at
which 75 percent of EPA Regional and State laboratories achieved results within a specified
range around the spike value. In the absence of WS data, the other approach that EPA used was
the MDL multiplier method.  In this approach, the PQL was calculated by multiplying the EPA-
derived MDL by a factor of 5 or 10. The 5 or 10 multiplier was used to account for the
variability and uncertainty that  can occur at the MDL.  The
MDL multiplier method was mostly used in the early years of rule development for NPDWRs
when insufficient WS  data were available. Once sufficient WS data became available, most of
the PQLs that were developed using the MDL multiplier were validated using WS data.

   1.  How Were Water Supply Studies Conducted?

   Water Supply Performance  Evaluation (WS PE) studies were an integral part of EPA's
certification program for drinking water laboratories for over 20 years.  Historically,  WS  studies
were conducted semi-annually by EPA for all current and proposed drinking water contaminants.
Although the WS studies were conducted semi-annually, for certification purposes, laboratories
were only required to demonstrate acceptable performance once a year (141.23(k)(3) and
141.24(f)(17)). WS study  samples (spike samples) were sent to all laboratories that conduct
drinking water analyses, including utility laboratories,  commercial laboratories, and  State and
EPA Regional laboratories. Each WS study included samples or sample concentrates that were
analyzed both for all SDWA analytes and for analytes that were being considered for regulation
under the SDWA.

   During these WS studies, EPA's National Exposure Research Laboratory (NERL) in
Cincinnati, Ohio, sent participating laboratories a set of stable sample concentrates in sealed
glass ampules, a data reporting  form, and appropriate instructions.  Each laboratory produced the
study samples by diluting a measured quantity of the specific concentrates to volume with
reagent water.  The laboratory then analyzed the samples using the specified procedures. The
completed reporting form was sent to EPA for evaluation,  the data were carefully reviewed
(QA/QC'ed), entered into a database, and a fully detailed report was then returned to each
laboratory.  The responsible State or EPA office contacted those laboratories that demonstrated
potential problems.

   At this point in time, the WS Performance Evaluation studies are no longer performed by
EPA.  On July 18, 1996 (61 FR 37464), EPA proposed options for the externalization of the PE
studies program (now referred to as the Proficiency Testing or PT program). After evaluating
public comment, in the June 12, 1997 final notice EPA stated that the Agency has decided (62
FR 32112):
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review       3                         Final - March 2003

-------
       ...on a program where EPA would issue standards for the operation of the program, the
       National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) would develop standards for
       private sector PE (PT) suppliers and would evaluate and accredit PE suppliers, and the
       private sector would develop and manufacture PE (PT) materials and conduct PE (PT)
       studies.  In addition, as part of the program,  the PE (PT) providers would report the
       results of the studies to the study participants and to those organizations that have
       responsibility for administering programs supported by the studies.

    Since the last WS PE studies performed by EPA were done in the Fall of 1999, the
externalization of the PE program should not effect the data needed for this Six-Year Review
process. However, at this time the Agency has not determined how to gather data to reassess
PQLs for subsequent reviews of NPDWRs.

    2.  What Criteria Are Used to Determine a PQL?

    The derivation of the PQL involves determining the concentration of an analyte at which a
set percentage of the laboratories achieve results within a specified range of the spiked value.
Historically, the percentage of laboratories has been set at 75 percent, while a range of
acceptance limits around the spiked value has been used. In many cases, EPA derived PQLs
only from the data submitted by the EPA Regional and State laboratories that participate in the
WS studies.

    A PQL derived from WS data in such a manner is considered a stringent target for routine
laboratory performance because:

       •  WS samples are prepared in reagent water and therefore do not contain the matrix
          interferences that may occur in field samples.
       •  Laboratories analyze only a small number of samples for the study and are aware that
          the samples are for the purposes of performance evaluation (i.e., they are not "blind"
          samples).

    In deriving a PQL  from WS study data, the Agency typically sets a fixed percentage or 2
sigma (2 standard deviation) acceptance window around the known concentration (or spike
value) of the WS samples.  Then the percentage of laboratories achieving results within the
specified acceptance window (y-axis) is plotted against the known spike concentration of the
Water Supply study samples (x-axis). While the acceptance limits for inorganics typically range
from 15 to 30 percent  (40 CFR §141.23(k)(3)(ii)), the acceptance limits for organics generally
range from 20 to 50 percent (141.24(f)(17)(i) and 40 CFR §141.24(h)(19)(i)). Several SDWA
analytes have acceptance limits of 2  sigma (2 standard deviation). Linear regression or graphical
analysis is performed on the WS data to determine the concentration at which 75  percent of EPA
Regional and State laboratories achieve  acceptable results.
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review       4                        Final - March 2003

-------
III.    How Did EPA Identify Which Contaminants to Evaluate for a PQL Reassessment?

   For the Six-Year analytical feasibility review, EPA focused on assessing whether the
practical quantitation level (or PQL) has changed since promulgation for a subset of the 68
chemical NPDWRs. Figure 1 illustrates the overall Six-Year protocol and the basic process used
to identify the subset of contaminants for which a PQL reassessment should be appropriate.
Using the protocol, EPA identified and performed the analytical feasibility analysis for a total of
40 NPDWRs (Table 1), which fell into one of two categories:

    >  First, for those contaminants where the MCL is currently limited by analytical feasibility
       (i.e., the MCL is set at the PQL) and the MCLG is still appropriate, EPA evaluated the
       currently approved methods for those contaminants and available WS data to determine
       whether it might be possible to lower the PQL and hence set an MCL that is closer to the
       MCLG.

    >  The second circumstance under which EPA re-evaluated the PQL was for contaminants
       identified under the Six-Year health effects technical review as having potential changes
       to their MCLG. Because the information for the health effects review was not
       completely available at the time the analytical methods analysis began, EPA took a
       broad-brush approach and included a number of contaminants that may not have needed a
       reassessment of their  analytical feasibility.
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review       5                        Final - March 2003

-------
Figure 1. Overview of the Protocol for the Revise/Not Revise Decision with a Focus on
Where Analytical Feasibility was Re-evaluated.
               NPDWRs under review
              Initial Technical Review
         Health Effects, methods and treatment
       feasibility, and other regulatory revisions.
         For methods -focused on MCLs that
             are currently limited by PQL.
              Is a health risk assessment
                 in process/planned?
                   No
                                                 Yes
      Pending health
      risk assessment
        Does the review suggest possible changes
            in MCLG/MCL/TT and or other
                 regulatory revisions?
                                                No
NPDWR remains appropriate
after data/information review
                   Yes
                  •   -

             In-depth Technical Analysis
        New risk assessment, methods feasibility,
     treatment effectiveness, occurrence and exposure
              and economic implications.
        For methods -focussed on determining if
       analytical feasibility an issue for NPDWRs
            •with potential changes in MCLG.
                            No Revision
                             at this time
                Is a significant gain in
          public health protection or significant
              cost savings likely to occur?
                    Yes
                                                  No
     Negligible gain in
  public health protection
     and/or cost savings
            Are the data sufficient to support
                 regulatory revision ?
                                                  No
   Data gaps - determine
      research needs
                    Yes
                                                1. Publish FR notice with preliminary revise/not revise
                                                decisions.

                                                2. Review Public Comments and consider revising decisions
                                                in context of new information.

                                                3. Publish FT? notice with final list of NPDWRs to be revised
                                                and planned rulemaking schedule(s).
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
                            Final - March 2003

-------
                 Table 1.  SDWA Chemical Contaminants Undergoing
                        Analytical Methods/PQL Reassessment

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
SDWA Chemical Contaminant
Alachlor
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Beryllium
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Cadmium
Carbofuran
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlordane
Chromium (Cr III and VI)
1 ,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP)
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene (para)
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethy lene
Dichloromethane (methylene chloride)
1 ,2- Dichloropropane
Dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD)
Diquat
Ethylene dibromide
Fluoride
Glyphosate
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Mercury
Methoxychlor
Oxamyl (Vydate)
PCBs - Polychlorinated biphenyls
(as decachlorobiphenyl)
Pentachlorophenol
Picloram
MCLG1
(mg/L)
zero
zero
zero
0.004
zero
0.005
0.04
zero
zero
0.1
zero
0.075
zero
0.007
zero
zero
zero
0.02
zero
4.0
0.7
zero
zero
zero
0.05
0.002
0.04
0.2
zero
zero
0.5
MCL2
(mg/L)
0.002
0.005
0.0002
0.004
0.006
0.005
0.04
0.005
0.002
0.1
0.0002
0.075
0.005
0.007
0.005
0.005
3xlO-8
0.02
0.00005
4.0
0.7
0.0004
0.0002
0.001
0.05
0.002
0.04
0.2
0.0005
0.001
0.5
Current PQL 3
(mg/L)
0.002
0.005
0.0002
0.001
0.006
0.002
0007
0.005
0.002
0.01
0.0002
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
3xlO-8
0.004
0.00005
0.5
0.06
0.0004
0.0002
0.001
0.001
0.0005
0.01
0.02
0.0005
0.001
0.001
Acceptance Limit4
± 45 %
± 20 % or 40 %
2 Std Dev.
±15%
2 Std Dev
± 20 %
± 45 %
± 20 % or 40 %
±45
±15%
± 40 %
± 20 % or 40 %
± 20 % or 40 %
± 20 % or 40 %
± 20 % or 40 %
± 20 % or 40 %
2 Std Dev
2 Std Dev
± 40 %
± 10 %
2 Std Dev
± 45 %
± 45 %
2 Std Dev
2 Std Dev
± 30 %
± 45 %
2 Std Dev
± 100 %
± 50 %
2 Std Dev
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
Final - March 2003

-------

32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
SDWA Chemical Contaminant
Tetrachloroethylene
Thallium
Toluene
Toxaphene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1 ,1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl chloride
Xylene (total)
MCLG1
(mg/L)
zero
0.0005
1
zero
0.2
0.003
zero
zero
10
MCL2
(mg/L)
0.005
0.002
1
0.003
0.2
0.005
0.005
0.002
10
Current PQL 3
(mg/L)
0.005
0.002
0.005
0.003
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.002
0.005
Acceptance Limit4
± 20 % or 40 %
± 30 %
± 20 % or 40 %
± 45 %
± 20 % or 40 %
± 20 % or 40 %
± 20 % or 40 %
± 45 %
± 20 % or 40 %
 Footnotes:
 1. The MCLGs for inorganics are listed at 40 CFR 141.51. The MCLGs for organics are listed at 40 CFR
 141.50.
 2. The MCLs for inorganics are listed at 40 CFR 141.62. The MCLs for organics are listed at 40 CFR 141.61.
 3. The PQL for fluoride is published in 51 FR 11397 (April 1986). The PQLs for benzene, carbon tetrachloride,
 1,4-dichlorobenzene, 1,2-dichloroethane,  1,1-dichloroethylene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane and vinyl chloride are
 published in 52 FR 25690 at 25700 (July 8,  1987). The PQLs for alachlor, cadmium, carbofuran, chlordane,
 chromium, l,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane, 1,2-dichloropropane, heptachlor, heptachlor epoxide, ethylene
 dibromide, mercury, methoxychlor, PCBs, pentachlorophenol, tetrachloroethylene, toxaphene and xylene are
 published in 56 FR 3526 at 3552 (January 30, 1991). In the January 1991 FR, the PQL for pentachlorophenol
 was proposed but the final PQL was published in 56 FR 30266 (July 1, 1991) at 30270.  The PQL for beryllium,
 benzo(a)pyrene, bis or di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate dichloromethane, dioxin, diquat, glyphosate, hexachlorobenzene,
 hexachloro-cyclopentadiene, picloram and thallium 1,1,1-trichloroethane are published in 57 FR 31776 at 31801
 (July 17, 1992).
 4. The acceptance limits inorganic can be found at CFR 141.23(k)(3)(ii). Acceptance limits forthe organic
 chemicals are found at CFR 141.24(f)(17)(i)(C and D) and CFR 141.24(h)(19)(i)(B).
IV.    What Approaches Were Used to Reassess the PQLs of Contaminants Identified by
       the Six-Year Review Process?

    For this Six-Year Review process, several approaches could be used for the reassessment or
re-evaluation of the PQLs for selected chemical contaminants. However, to be consistent with
the policies and the process that the Agency has used in the past (50 FR 46880, November 13,
1985; 52 FR 25690, July 8, 1987; 54 FR 22062, May 22, 1989),  only the "WS data" and the
"MDL Multiplier" approaches were considered for the Six-Year Review process. Of these two
approaches, the WS data approach is the preferred route since it relies on actual data to
determine the level of quantitation.  For the Six-Year Review, the MDL multiplier method is
only used to estimate what a potential PQL could be if WS data are sufficient to indicate a
change but insufficient to actually recalculate a PQL. There are  advantages and disadvantages
for each of these approaches.  Some of the advantages and disadvantages for these PQL
derivation approaches are as follows:
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
Final - March 2003

-------
(1) Analysis ofWSPEData - Uses data from WS studies to derive a new PQL. This value is
    compared to the old PQL (i.e., the one that is currently in place).

    The advantages of the WS PE Data methods of deriving a PQL -

    *•   Uses inter-laboratory data collected at concentrations near the MCL.
    >   More representative of what methods are being used for the analysis of that contaminant.
    >   May be the preferred approach for contaminants with MCLGs of zero.

    The disadvantages of the WS analysis method of deriving a PQL -

    >   In the past, some stakeholders have felt that the PQL may be influenced by the set of WS
       data used (i.e., using data from all laboratories as opposed to only using data from EPA
       State and Regional laboratories).
    >   Some stakeholders have felt that the laboratory performance on WS data may be skewed,
       because WS samples may be treated as special samples that are critical for laboratory
       certification.
    >   The derivation of PQLs from  WS data is a resource- and time-intensive process.
    >   Because the WS samples are designed to test precision and accuracy around the MCL,
       the WS data may not cover concentrations several orders of magnitude below the current
       MCL. Hence, for some analytes, data points at lower levels may not be represented.

(2) The MDL-Multiplier Approach -  Using the MDL of the currently approved method(s) for
each contaminant, the 5 or 10 multiplier method can be used to estimate the PQL. This value is
then compared to the PQL that was derived before the 1996 SDWA Amendments.

    The advantage of the MDL multiplier approach - it is a relatively easy and clear process.

    The disadvantages of the MDL multiplier approach -

    *•   The WS studies test laboratory performance near the MCL as opposed to the MDL. A
       PQL derived from the MDL multiplier method may not be representative, because the
       reproducibility of a result obtained at the MDL is often not as good as that obtained near
       the MCL.
    >   Because several methods may be approved for the same contaminant, it can be
       difficult to decide which MDL to select for the PQL calculation. However, knowledge of
       the methods that are the most widely used can be determined from the WS data since
       laboratories report which method was used to analyze spike samples.

    Acknowledging the advantages and disadvantages of the WS analysis and the MDL
multiplier approach, EPA used the  following steps for the Six Year Review to reassess analytical
feasibility for the 40 chemical contaminants identified:

    •   The first step is the methods comparison step.  This step compared the method detection
       limits of the analytical methods which were available at the time the PQL was set to the
       method detection limits for the currently approved  analytical methods.  This methods
       comparison should help to identify whether the ability to detect (and therefore quantify)
       these contaminants at lower levels has increased.
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review       9                        Final - March 2003

-------
    •   The second step is the method usage over time. This step used information from the last
       eight Water Supply studies (WS 34 through WS 41; 1996 to 1999) to generate a bar
       graph of the distribution of the analytical methods used to analyze the spike samples in
       the WS studies. This analysis should give an idea of the analytical methods that appear
       to be the most widely used for the analysis  of particular contaminants.  Knowing which
       analytical methods are the most widely used and the MDL for these methods can aid in
       estimating where the quantitation may lie today.

    •   The third and last step is the Water Supply data analysis step.  If Water Supply data are
       sufficient, more recent WS data can be used to recalculate the PQL (using linear
       regression or graphical analyses) and determine if the quantitation level has changed.
       Data may be considered insufficient if there are not enough data points around the 75
       percent criteria to recalculate the PQL using linear regression or graphical analysis. This
       may occur if the laboratories evaluated exhibit high passing rates (>75 percent) for all of
       the WS studies evaluated and/or no WS spike samples were below the concentration of
       the current PQL. However, even if the WS data are insufficient to actually recalculate
       the PQL, the information may be useful to either confirm that the current PQL still
       appears to remain appropriate or it may give an indication as to whether the PQL is
       likely to change (if the data points at concentrations close to the current PQL are
       available).

    Using the information from these three steps helped EPA to determine if our ability to
quantify contaminants at lower levels has increased.  If there was an indication that the PQL has
or could change, then pending the results of the health effects and occurrence review, as well as
risk management considerations, these chemical contaminants may be subject to a full blown
PQL reassessment (i.e., gathering data that sufficiently covers the area around the 75 percent
laboratory passing criteria and the appropriate concentration range).

Note: This document will not discuss whether a full blown PQL reassessment is necessary for
specific contaminants.  Instead, that decision will be made after the integration of these results
with the health effects and occurrence and exposure reviews and discussed in the Six Year
Notice of Intent.
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review       10                       Final - March 2003

-------
V. Results of the PQL Reassessment
Alachlor

Results of the Method Comparison

   The approved drinking water methods for the determination of alachlor, a Phase II synthetic
organic compound (SOC), were listed in the 1991 NPDWRs (56 FR 3526).  These methods all
utilize GC or GC/MS with several extraction and/or detector variations: EPA Methods 505, 507,
and 525.1.  Since promulgation of these original methods, the Agency has eliminated EPA
Method 525.1 from the list of approved methods, and has approved the use of three new GC
methods: EPA Methods 508.1,  525.2, and 551.1.  The three new methods are approximately 10
to 100 times more sensitive than the earlier methods. The current EPA 505 is equivalent in
sensitivity relative to the time of Phase II promulgation. Table 2 summarizes the current and
previous EPA methods along with their MDLs.
Table 2.   Results of the Analytical Methods Comparison for Alachlor (Newly Promulgated
          Methods are Indicated in Bold)
MCL = 2|ig/L Current PQL = 2 [ig/L DLA = 0.2|ig/L Acceptance Limit* = ± 45%
Methods Approved At Promulgation
Method
EPA 505 '
EPA 5071
EPA 525. 11


Technique
Microextraction and
GC
GC with NPD
LSE and GC/MS


MDL
(Hg/L)
0.225
0.381
1.0


Currently Approved Methods (141.24)
Method
EPA 5052
EPA 5072
EPA 508.12
EPA 52S.22
EPA 551.12
Technique
Microextraction and
GC
GC with BCD
LSE and GC with BCD
LSE and GC/MS
LLE and GC with BCD
MDL
(Hg/L)
0.225
0.14
0.009
0.069-0.16*
0.005-0.025*
1 "Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water," EPA/600/4-88/039, December
1988.
2 "Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water-- Supplement III,"
EPA/600/R-95/131, August 1995.
A Regulatory DLs for organic compounds are listed at 40 CFR §141.24(h)(18).
'''Acceptance limits for organic compounds are listed at 40 CFR §141.24(h)(19)(i).
* Multiple method detection limit (MDL) values result from variability of reagents, instrumentation and/or
laboratory /analyst performance.
" EDL = estimated detection limit, used to approximate the MDL.
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
11
Final - March 2003

-------
Results of the Analysis of the WS Data

a.  Method Usage Over Time

   Figure 2 plots the distribution of analytical techniques used by the EPA and State
laboratories in WS 34 to 41.  Methods categorized as "other" represent methods which were not
specifically identified by participating laboratories or were otherwise unknown. As shown in
Figure 2, EPA Method 507 was used fairly consistently throughout WS 34 to 41.  Use of EPA
525.1 was phased out after WS 36, while use of EPA Method 525.2 increased significantly
during the same study.  EPA Methods 508.1, 505, and "other" methods remained in use
minimally throughout the study period.

     Figure 2. Distribution of Analytical Techniques by WS Study: Alachlor

                                         Alachlor
100% —


1
1
0>
c
'in
in
.a
*



90% -
80% -
70% -
60% -

50% -
40% -
30% -
20% -
10% -
0% +
                                                                              0505
                                                                              Q 507
                                                                              0508.1
                                                                              0525.1
                                                                              • 525.2
                                                                               other
               WS34   WS35    WS36   WS 37   WS 38   WS 39   WS 40   WS 41
                                        Water Study


b. Results of the PQL Analysis

   As PE data were not available at the time of the original PQL determination, the PQL of 2
l-ig/L was derived using a multiplier of 10 on the interlaboratory MDL (0.15 |ig/L) based on a
study conducted by the Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory in Cincinnati, Ohio
(54 FR 22104).  Data from WS 24 to 41 were used to attempt a PQL re-evaluation. Table 3
summarizes these data, indicating the study number, the true value (i.e., the spiked value) of the
WS sample, the
number of results from EPA and State laboratories, and the calculated percentage of laboratories
whose results successfully passed within designated acceptance limits for alachlor (specified in
40 CFR §141.24(h)(19)(i) to be ± 45 percent).
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
12
Final - March 2003

-------
Table 3.  Evaluation of Alachlor Data from WS Studies Using the 45% Acceptance Limits
          (in Order of Increasing Concentration)
ws#
24a
26b
29
25a
32
31
30
34
27
33
24b
37
35
26a
36
38
25b
41
39
40
Spiked "True" Value (jig/L)
0.735
0.933
1.59
1.87
2.33
2.50
3.21
3.43
3.80
4.27
4.53
4.87
5.27
5.66
7.34
9.52
9.80
12.9
14.8
17.7
# Results from EPA
Regional and State Labs
19
20
14
13
43
25
40
48
17
30
19
40
27
20
50
49
13
37
40
50
% Labs Passing ± 45%
Acceptance Limits
100
95.0
71.4
100
86.0
76.0
97.5
100
88.2
86.7
100
85.0
96.3
95.0
100
93.9
100
100
97.5
90.0
    The data from the available PE studies were not conducive to PQL re-evaluation, as the
percentage of labs passing generally exceeded the standard 75 percent passing criterion needed
to calculate the PQL using linear regression or graphical analysis (with the exception of one
study - WS 29).  However, even around the original PQL of 2 |ig/L, the percentage of
laboratories passing is extremely variable and ranges from 71.4 percent in WS 29 to 100 percent
for several WS studies at varying concentrations.  Even at higher concentrations of 3.8 |ig/L (WS
27) and 4.87 |ig/L (WS 37) the laboratory passing rates dip to 88 and 85 percent, respectively.
Based on this information, EPA believes the PQL for alachlor appears to still be in the
appropriate range.
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
13
Final - March 2003

-------
Conclusion for Alachlor

    Since the promulgation of the 1991 NPDWR for alachlor and other Phase II SOCs, three new
analytical methods (EPA Methods 525.2, 508.1, and 551.1) have been approved for the
determination of alachlor in drinking water. Based on the distribution of method use over time
(Figure 2), it appears that EPA and State laboratories did not utilize the increased analytical
sensitivity of the newer methods, instead preferring use of EPA Method 507.  Meanwhile, a PQL
for alachlor could not be recalculated using the PE data from WS 24 to 41.  Nearly every study
exhibited a laboratory success rate above the 75 percent criterion needed for re-evaluating the
PQL, and furthermore, the range of true values generally exceeded the current PQL value.
Therefore, the available PE data provide very limited evidence for revising the current PQL of 2
l-ig/L. Based on the available data, EPA believes the PQL for alachlor is most likely in the
appropriate range.
Benzene

Results of the Method Comparison

    In July 1987, the final NPDWR for eight Phase I VOCs approved the use of EPA Methods
502.2,  503.1, 524.1, and 524.2 for the determination of benzene in drinking water (52 FR
25690). The currently approved methods for benzene determination are EPA Methods 502.2 and
524.2.  Table 4 summarizes the MDLs for both the original and current approved versions of the
methods. As compared to the original methods, the updated methods are equal in sensitivity to
the original methods.
Table 4.   Results of the Analytical Methods Comparison for Benzene
MCL = 5 jig/L Current PQL = 5 jig/L DLA = 0.5 jig/L Acceptance Limit* = ± 20% (>10 jig/L) or
± 40% (<10 ng/L)
Methods Approved At Promulgation
Method
EPA 502.2 '
EPA 503. 11
EPA 524. 11
EPA 524.2 '
Technique
Purge and Trap GC
Purge and Trap GC
Purge and Trap
GC/MS
Purge and Trap
GC/MS
MDL°
(Hg/L)
0.01
0.02
0.1
0.03-0.04*
Currently Approved Methods (141.24)
Method
EPA 502.22
EPA 524.22


Technique
Purge and Trap GC
Purge and Trap GC/MS


MDL
(Hg/L)
0.01
0.03-
0.04*


Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
14
Final - March 2003

-------
 1 "Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water," EPA/600/4-88/039, December
 1988.
 2 "Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water--Supplement III," EPA/600/R-
 95/131, August 1995.
 * The MDLs of the original methods for this contaminant ranged from 0.2 - 0.5 ng/L according to the July 1987
 Federal Register notice promulgating NPDWRs for the VOCs (52 FR 25690).  However, the 1988 methods
 manual cited in footnote 1 lists the MDLs shown above.
 * Multiple method detection limit (MDL) values result from variability of reagents, instrumentation and/or
 laboratory/analyst performance.
 - Regulatory DLs for VOCs are listed at 40 CFR § 141.24(f)(17)(i).
 t Acceptance limits for VOCs are listed at 40 CFR § 141.24(f)(17)(i).	
Results of the Analysis of the WS Data

a.  Method Usage Over Time

    Figure 3 summarizes the distribution of the different methods used by the EPA and State
laboratories during WS studies 34 to 41.  The category of "other" contains those methods that
were either  unknown or otherwise unidentified by the participating laboratories. As shown in
Figure 3, use of EPA Method 524.2 during WS 34 to 41 generally increased over time while use
of EPA Method 502.2 decreased slightly during the same period.  Overall, usage of EPA Method
524.2 remained consistently dominant over that of EPA Method 502.2. Use of the original EPA
Methods, 503.1 and 524.1, were not apparent during this period.

     Figure 3. Distribution of Analytical Techniques by WS Study: Benzene

                                            Benzene
          100%

       O)
       .a
       us
90% -

80% -

70% -

60%

50% -

40% -

30% -

20% -

10% -

 0%
          0502.2

          0524.2

          • other
                 WS34   WS35   WS36    WS 37   WS 38   WS 39    WS 40   WS 41

                                           Water Study
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
                                   15
Final - March 2003

-------
b.  Results of the PQL Analysis

    The original PQL of 5 |ig/L for benzene was determined by multiplying the regulatory
detection limit of 0.5 |ig/L by a factor of 10 (52 FR 25700). To re-evaluate the PQL, multi-
laboratory performance data from WS 24 through 41 were reviewed.  Table 5 summarizes the
results of these water studies,  providing the study number, the spiked value for the WS sample,
the number of laboratory results,  and the percentage of laboratories whose reported results fell
within the acceptance limits of ±  20 percent for true values greater than 10  |ig/L and ± 40 percent
for true values lower than 10 |ig/L (specified at 141.24(f)(17)(i)).
Table 5.  Evaluation of Benzene Data from WS Studies Using the ± 20% or ± 40%
          Acceptance Limits (in Order of Increasing Concentration)
ws#
24
34
27
36
39
30
26
o o
55
37
31
25
35
29
38
32
40
41
Spiked "True"
Value 
-------
acceptance limits, the regression line demonstrates a positive slope, although a PQL re-
evaluation is also not possible because the true values exceed the current PQL.  However, the
high percentages of laboratories passing around the current PQL of 5 |ig/L suggest that the PQL
for benzene could possibly be lower.
Figure 4.  Two-part Distribution of Benzene WS Data


                                   Benzene


     100 -

      90 -

      80 -

      70 -
   O)
   'I  60 -
   
-------
Benzo(a)pyrene

Results of the Method Comparison

   With the Phase V synthetic organic compounds (57 FR 31776), three approved methods were
listed for determination of benzo(a)pyrene in drinking water, including gas
chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) with liquid-solid extraction (LSE; EPA Method
525.1), high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) with liquid-liquid extraction (LLE;
EPA Method 550), and HPLC with LSE (EPA Method 550.1).  Since this regulation was
promulgated, the Agency has replaced the old GC/MS - LSE method with  an updated version,
EPA Method 525.2.
Table 6.   Results of the Analytical Methods Comparison for Benzo(a)pyrene (Newly
          Promulgated Methods Indicated in Bold)
MCL = 0.2 jig/L Current PQL = 0.2 jig/L DLA = 0.02 jig/L Acceptance Limitf = ± 2xS.D.
Methods Approved At Promulgation
Method
EPA 525. 11
EPA 5502
EPA 550. 12
Technique
LSE and GC/MS
LLE, HPLC
LSE, HPLC
MDL
(Hg/L)
0.04-
0.1*
0.029
0.016
Currently Approved Methods (141.24)
Method
EPA 52S.23
EPA 5502
EPA 550. 12
Technique
LSE and GC/MS
LLE, HPLC
LSE, HPLC
MDL
(Hg/L)
0.032-0.23*
0.029
0.016
1 "Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water," EPA/600/4-88/039, December
1988.
2 "Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water—Supplement I," EPA/600/4-90/020,
July 1990.
3 "Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water-Supplement III," EPA/600/R-
95/131, August 1995.
* Multiple method detection limit (MDL) values result from variability of reagents, instrumentation, and/or
laboratory /analyst performance.
A Regulatory DLs for organic compounds are listed at 40 CFR §141.24(h)(18).
f Acceptance limits are listed at 40 CFR §141.24(h)(19)(i).
Results of the WS Data Analysis

a.  Method Usage Over Time

   Figure 5 illustrates the distribution of the analytical techniques used by EPA and State
laboratories in WS studies 34 to 41.  The "other" techniques shown in this figure include
unidentified, unknown, or unreported techniques. Figure 5 shows that, by the time of WS study
38, EPA Method 525.1 was almost completely phased out and replaced with EPA 525.2 (which,
according to Table 6, is more sensitive).
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
18
Final - March 2003

-------
  Figure 5. Distribution of Analytical Techniques by WS Study: Benzo(a)pyrene

                                  Benzo(a)pyrene
       80%
                                                                          • 550
                                                                          0525.1
                                                                          D 550.1
                                                                          0525.2
                                                                          O other
             WS34   WS35  WS36   WS 37   WS 38  WS 39   WS 40   WS 41
                                      Water Study
b. Results of the PQL Analysis

   The original PQL was estimated at 0.2 |ig/L (57 FR 31802) based on PE data compiled from
WS studies 23, 24, 26, and 27. The data used for the re-evaluation of the PQL were taken from
WS studies 26 through 41. Table 7 summarizes the results of these studies.  The table provides
the WS study number, the spiked or "true value" for the WS sample, the number of laboratory
results, and the percent of laboratories passing the WS proficiency test for benzo(a)pyrene within
the acceptance limits.  The acceptance limits were calculated to be plus or minus two standard
deviations from the estimated mean recovery, as stipulated in CFR §141.24(h)(19)(i).
Table 7.   Evaluation of PE Data for Benzo(a)pyrene from WS Studies Using 2 x S.D.
          Acceptance Limits (in Order of Increasing Concentration)
ws#
31
32
30
38
36
34
Spiked "True" Value (ng/L)
0.202
0.337
0.485
0.53
0.64
0.75
# Results from EPA and
State Labs
14
29
12
38
40
28
% Labs Passing Acceptance Limits
79
93
92
90
90
93
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
19
Final - March 2003

-------
ws#
37
33
40
35
26a
39
41
26b
Spiked "True" Value (u,g/L)
0.94
1.29
1.48
1.53
2.25
2.37
2.37
15.5
# Results from EPA and
State Labs
37
22
43
27
10
31
25
12
% Labs Passing Acceptance Limits
87
91
98
89
83
97
92
90
    Figure 6 shows the plot of the benzo(a)pyrene data for WS 26 to 41, and the linear regression
line. There is no meaningful relationship in these data, in large part because the true values of
the samples are so high that a very large percentage of the labs passed all the PE series.  Further,
only one PE sample approached the current PQL (WS 31), and these results (79 percent passing)
support the current PQL.

         Figure 6. PQL Evaluation from PE WS Data: Benzo(a)pyrene

                                     Benzo(a)pyrene
             100%
   90% -

   80% -

   70% -
ro
I  60% -
to
ra
•J;  50% -
.Q
™  40% -

   30% -

   20% -

   10% -

    0% -
                                                               75%
                      Current PQL= 0.2
                            0.5
                                        1           1.5

                                        True Value (ug/L)
                                                                         2.5
Conclusion for Benzo(a)pyrene

    As noted in the method comparison, a more sensitive method (EPA Method 525.2) has been
approved since the promulgation of benzo(a)pyrene, replacing an older and less sensitive version
(EPA Method 525.1).  The method usage evaluation shows that in recent years, a majority of
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
                                 20
Final - March 2003

-------
benzo(a)pyrene, replacing an older and less sensitive version (EPA Method 525.1).  The method
usage evaluation shows that in recent years, a majority of EPA and State laboratories in the PE
studies have chosen to use this more sensitive method out of all the approved methods for
benzo(a)pyrene. The WS data do not afford a re-evaluation of the PQL, and at best, support the
current value. There is no clear evidence to support a change from the current PQL of 0.2 |ig/L.
The current PQL appears to be appropriate.
Beryllium

Results of the Method Comparison

   With the Phase V lOCs (57 FR 31776), EPA approved multiple analytical methods for
determination of beryllium in drinking water, including an atomic absorption-furnace (AAF)
method (EPA Method 210.2), an inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectroscopy
(ICP-AES) method (EPA Method 200.7), ICP-mass spectroscopy method (ICP/MS) (EPA
Method 200.8), and atomic absorption-platform (AAP) method (EPA Method 200.9), and three
voluntary consensus standard methods, including Standard Methods 3113B (AAF) and 3120B
(ICP/AES) and ASTM Method D3645-84B (AAF). EPA Method 210.2 and ASTM Method
D3645-84B have since been removed from the approved list and replaced by one voluntary
consensus standard method, ASTM Method D3645-93B (AAF).  These methods are listed in
Table 8. The MDLs of EPA Methods 200.7, 200.8 and 200.9 do not present any improved
sensitivity capabilities.
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review       21                        Final - March 2003

-------
Table 8.   Results of the Analytical Methods Comparison for Beryllium (Newly
           Promulgated Methods Indicated in Bold)
 MCL = 4 [ig/L     Current PQL = 1
DI/ = 0.02-0.3 [ig/L
Acceptance Limit = ± 15%
Methods Approved At Promulgation
Method
EPA 200.72
EPA 200. 82
EPA 200. 92
EPA210.21
3113B3
3120B3
D3645-84B4
Technique
ICP/AES
ICP/MS
AAP
AAF
AAF
ICP
AAF
MDL
(Hg/L)
0.3
0.3
0.02
0.2 '
N/A*
N/A*
N/A*
Currently Approved Methods (141.23)
Method
EPA 200.75
EPA 200.85
EPA 200.95

3113B7
3120B7
D3645-93B6
Technique
ICP/AES
ICP/MS
AAP

AAF
ICP
AAF
MDL
(Hg/L)
0.3
0.02 -0.3*
0.02

N/A*
N/A*
N/A*
 1 "Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes (MCAWW)," EPA/600/4-79/020, March 1983.
 2 "Methods for the Determination of Metals in Environmental Samples," EPA/600/4-91/101, June 1991.
 317th edition of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste, 1989. American Public Health
 Association, American Water Works Association, Water Pollution Control Federation.
 4 Annual Book of ASTM Standards. Vols. 11.01 and 11.02, 1991. American Society for Testing Materials, 1916
 Race Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
 5 "Methods for the Determination of Metals in Environmental Samples-Supplement I," EPA/600/R-94/111, May
 1994.
 6 Annual Book of ASTMStandards. Vol. 11.01,  1994. American Society for Testing and Materials, 1961 Race
 Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
 718* and 19* edition of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 1992 and 1995.
 American Public Health Association, 1015 Fifteenth Street NW, Washington, DC 20005.
 * Regulatory DLs for inorganic compounds are listed at 40 CFR §141.23(a)(4)(i). These values vary depending
 on analytical method.
 *MDLs are not specified for non-EPA (i.e., voluntary consensus standard) methods.
 f Acceptance limits are listed at 40 CFR §141.23(k)(3)(ii) for inorganic compounds.
 ' EDL = estimated detection limit, used to approximate the MDL.	
Results of the Analysis of the WS Data

a.  Method Usage Over Time

    The distribution of the analytical techniques used by the EPA and State laboratories in WS
studies 34 to 41 is shown in Figure 7.  The category of "other" techniques include additional
methods used by participating laboratories, as well as "unknown" methods, i.e., methods for
which laboratories did not report any information on the type of method used. As shown in
Figure 7, EPA Methods 200.7 and 210.2 were the most widely used methods in WS 34 and 35.
By WS 37, laboratories ceased to use EPA Method 210.2 and relied more on EPA Method 200.9.
From WS 37 to 41, EPA Methods 200.7, 200.8, and 200.9 were most commonly used. The two
3000-series Standard Methods were used to a far lesser extent than these EPA Methods.
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
  22
       Final - March 2003

-------
     Figure 7. Distribution of Analytical Techniques by WS Study: Beryllium

                                         Beryllium
OU"/o -
50% -
| 40% -
QJ
O)
i 30% -
JD
(D
^ 20% -
10% -
no/








r


D


i



D


r-i
-




D


•








-i

On












fi
•


L

• 200.7
• 200.8
• 200.9
• 210.2
• 3113B
• 3120B
Bother


               WS34   WS35   WS36  WS 37   WS 38   WS 39   WS 40   WS 41

                                        Water Study
b. Results of the PQL Analysis

    The current PQL (1.0 |ig/L) was originally determined using PE data from WS 24 through 27
(56 FR 60949). A PQL re-evaluation was attempted using more current data spanning WS 24 to
41. Table 9 summarizes the results of these water studies, providing the study number, the
spiked value for the WS sample, the number of results from EPA and State laboratories, and the
beryllium results evaluated using an acceptance limit of ± 15 percent (as indicated at 40 CFR
Table 9.   Evaluation of Beryllium Data from WS Studies Using the 15% Acceptance
          Limits (in Order of Increasing Concentration)
ws#
25b
26a
24
32
39
35
Spiked "True" Value 
-------
ws#
25a
41
31
37
27
34
40
36
30
o o
JJ
29
38
26b
Spiked "True" Value (ng/L)
2.00
2.58
3.27
4.26
4.67
5.33
6.60
7.70
8.47
9.07
9.76
10.1
23.1
# Results from EPA and
State Labs
24
46
33
49
24
60
64
61
49
39
25
63
46
% Labs Passing ± 15%
Acceptance Limits
91.7
91.3
93.9
98.0
75.0
90.0
90.6
95.1
91.8
84.6
80.0
90.5
84.8
    The data in Table 9 seems to indicate that a linear relationship might exist between "true"
value concentration and percentage of labs passing. Furthermore, a PQL re-evaluation appeared
possible because the percentage of labs passing fell within the 75 percent criterion for some
studies, and the true values from the water studies approximated the general range of the current
PQL. Visual evaluation of the laboratory passing percentages around the current PQL of 1 |ig/L
indicate that this value is still appropriate and unlikely to change. The graph in Figure 8
illustrates this relationship between the spike concentrations and the laboratory passing rates.  As
shown in Figure 8, the recalculated PQL of 0.71 |ig/L, is slightly lower than the current PQL.
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
24
Final - March 2003

-------
      Figure 8. Two-part Distribution of Beryllium WS Data:

                                         Beryllium
            100%
   90% -

   80% -

   70% -

I  60%
in
S.
          in
          .a
          ro
   50% -

   40% -

   30% -

   20% -

   10% -

    0%
                    *
                                                                        75%
                 -1
                                9            14

                                True Value (ug/L)
19
24
Conclusion for Beryllium

    The method comparison results indicate that EPA Method 200.9 is the most sensitive method
for determination of beryllium in drinking water and its MDL has improved by five-fold over the
most sensitive MDLs achieved at the time of promulgation. EPA Method 200.7 was used more
widely in previous years but is less sensitive. As revealed by the results of method usage over
time, EPA Method 200.9 is the most commonly employed method for beryllium determination in
recent PE studies.  These trends seem to imply a shift in analytical capabilities for beryllium
determination toward greater sensitivity. Thus, EPA and State laboratories are likely to reach
lower detection limits today compared to the year of NPDWR promulgation. The re-evaluation
of the PQL using a linear regression was calculated to be 0.71 |ig/L, a value close to the current
PQL of 1 i-ig/L.  Although it may be possible to lower the PQL slightly based on more recent PE
data, the current PQL is still appropriate.
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate

Results of the Method Comparison

   At the time of the Phase V SOC promulgation (57 FR 31776), EPA Methods 506 and 525.1
were the only approved methods for the analysis of bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (also known as
di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate). Since that time, EPA Method 506, which uses LLE or LSE GC with
PID, has remained on the approved methods list while EPA Method 525.1, which utilizes LSE
GC/MS, has been replaced by a more sensitive version, EPA Method 525.2. This increased
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
                                 25
 Final - March 2003

-------
sensitivity, however, is only marginal, as evidenced by the similarity of their MDLs. Table 10
lists the approved methods, techniques, and MDLs, during and after the time of rule
promulgation.
Table 10.     Results of the Analytical Methods Comparison for Bis(2-
              ethylhexyl)phthalate (Newly Promulgated Methods are Indicated in Bold)
MCL = 6[ig/L Current PQL = 6 p,g/L DLA = 0.6ng/L Acceptance Limitf = ± 2 x S.D.
Methods Approved At Promulgation
Method
EPA 525. 11
EPA 5062
Technique
LSE and GC/MS
LLE or LSE and
GCw/PID
MDL
(ng/L)
0.6-0.8*
2.25
Currently Approved Methods (141.24)
Method
EPA 52S.23
EPA 5063
Technique
LSE and GC/MS
LLE or LSE and GC
with PID
MDL
(ng/L)
0.46-1.3*
2.25
1 "Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water," EPA/600/4-88/039, December
1988.
2 "Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water—Supplement I," EPA/600/4-90/020,
July 1990.
3 "Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water— Supplement III," EPA/600/R-
95/131, August 1995.
* Multiple method detection limit (MDL) values result from variability of reagents, instrumentation, and/or
laboratory /analyst performance.
' Regulatory DLs for organic compounds are listed at 40 CFR 141.24(h)(18).
f Acceptance limits for organic compounds are listed at 40 CFR 141.24(h)(19)(i).
Results of the Analysis of the WS Data

a.  Method Usage Over Time

   The distribution of the analytical methods used during WS 34 to 41 by participating EPA and
State laboratories are illustrated in Figure 9.  The category of "other" represents any alternative
or unreported methods. As shown in Figure 9, use of EPA Method 525.1 decreased
significantly, corresponding to the introduction of EPA Method 525.2 during WS 36.  By WS 38,
EPA Method 525.1 was no longer used by any laboratories for analyzing bis(2-
ethylhexyl)phthalate. Laboratories overwhelmingly chose to use the LSE GC/MS technique
(either EPA Method 525.1 or its replacement, EPA Method 525.2) over EPA Method 506, which
utilized the LLE or LSE GC with PID.
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
26
Final - March 2003

-------
      Figure 9. Distribution of Analytical Techniques by WS Study: Bis(2-
      ethylhexyl)phthalate

                                 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
           90%
           80%
                 WS34  WS35   WS36   WS 37  WS 38   WS 39   WS 40  WS 41
                                         Water Study

b. Results of the PQL Analysis

   PE data from WS 24 to 41 were compiled to re-evaluate the PQL. Table 11 shows the WS
number, the true value concentration, the number of participating laboratories, and the percent of
laboratories passing within acceptance limits. These limits were calculated to be two times the
standard deviation, as stipulated in 40 CFR §141.24(h)(19)(i).
Table 11.      Evaluation of Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate Data from WS Studies Using 2 x
              S.D. Acceptance Limits (in Order of Increasing Concentration)
ws#
24a
29
30
26b
32
31
Spiked "True" Value
(Hg/L)
3.18
4.58
6.40
7.73
9.28
11.7
# Results from EPA and
State Labs
14
8
15
13
27
12
% Labs Passing
±2 x S.D. Acceptance Limits
35.7
75
60
69.2
92.6
91.7
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
27
Final - March 2003

-------
ws#
38
41
33
27
36
24b
37
34
39
40
26a
35
Spiked "True" Value
(ng/L)
13.7
15.3
15.8
17.3
18.3
19.1
21.3
21.3
27.7
32.4
34.2
37.7
# Results from EPA and
State Labs
35
25
23
7
39
15
33
33
26
38
13
20
% Labs Passing
±2 x S.D. Acceptance Limits
91.4
84
87
85.7
92.3
93.3
93.9
93.9
100
89.5
84.6
85
    Using the data in Table 11, a linear regression was performed by plotting the percentage of
the laboratories passing for WS 24 to 41 (excluding WS 25) against the spiked value of bis(2-
ethylhexyl)phthalate (Figure 10).  Simple visual examination of the graph shows that the
percentage of laboratories achieving acceptable results approximates 75 percent at a
concentration of 7.84 |ig/L. This concentration is higher than the current PQL of 6.0 |ig/L,
which was originally estimated using PE data from WS 23, 24, and 27 (57 FR 60953).
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
28
Final - March 2003

-------
    Figure 10. Two-part Distribution of Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate WS Data

                                  Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate




O>
c
'in
in
s.
.a
s?





IUU/0 "
90% -
80% -
70% -

60% -
50% -

40% -
30% -
20% -
10% -
no/
U/o
c





/
/
/
CD
II
O
Q_
-1-1
c
O
I '
) 5


j
X
/
§
4







» «-•»- — -- •+••- . ±
/ ~*" ~*

75%

h
i
(-
Q
Q




I I I I I ~~ I
10 15 20 25 30 35 4
                                         True Value (ug/L)
Conclusion for Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate

    Since the time of the Phase V SOC rule promulgation, EPA Method 525.2 has replaced EPA
Method 525.1.   The EPA and State laboratories have overwhelmingly chosen to use EPA
Method 525.2 over any other available methods as evidenced by the plot of method usage over
time.  The re-evaluation of the PQL using a linear regression calculated from WS 24a, 26b, 30
and 32 data showed that a new PQL could be derived. The re-evaluated PQL of 7.84 |ig/L is
higher than the original PQL of 6 jig/L (57 FR 31802).
Cadmium

Results of the Method Comparison

   The 1991 NPDWRs for Phase II lOCs listed atomic absorption-furnace (AAF; EPA Method
213.2), inductively coupled plasma (ICP; EPA Method 200.7A), and Standard Method 304 as
approved analytical methods for the determination of cadmium in drinking water (57 FR 31776).
Since the promulgation of the rule, these methods have been replaced by four new or updated
methods; three EPA methods (EPA Methods 200.7, 200.8, and 200.9), and one voluntary
consensus standard method (Standard Method 3113B). Table 12 compares the detection limits
of approved methods during and after promulgation of the NPDWR for cadmium and shows
EPA Method 200.9 to be the most sensitive method for detecting cadmium in drinking water.
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
29
Final - March 2003

-------
Table 12.      Results of the Analytical Methods Comparison for Cadmium (Newly
               Promulgated Methods Indicated in Bold)
Methods Approved At Promulgation
Method
EPA 200.7A1
EPA 2 13. 25
SM 3044

Technique
ICP/AES
AAF
AAF

MDL
0.6
O.I1
N/A°

Currently Approved Methods (141.23)
Method
EPA 200.72
EPA 200.82
EPA 200.92
SM 3113B3
Technique
ICP/AES
ICP/MS
AAP
AAF
MDL
1
0.03-0.5*
0.05
N/A°
 MCL = 5ng/L     Current PQL = 2
DLA = 0.1-1.0 ng/L
Acceptance Limit = ± 20%
 1 "Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic Emission Analysis of Drinking Water," Appendix to Method 200.7,
 March 1987.
 2 "Methods for the Determination of Metals in Environmental Samples—Supplement I," EPA/600/R-94/111, May
 1994.
 3 18th and 19th editions of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 1992 and 1995,
 American Public Health Association, 1015 Fifteenth Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20005.
 4 16th edition of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 1985, American Public Health
 Association, American Water Works Association, Pollution Control Federation.
 5 "Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes (MCAWW)," EPA/600/4-79/020, March 1983..
 * Regulatory DLs for inorganic compounds are listed at 40 CFR §141.23(a)(4)(i) and depend on analytical
 method.
 f Acceptance limits are listed at 40 CFR §141.23(k)(3)(ii).
 *Multiple method detection limit (MDL) values result from variability of reagents, instrumentation, and/or
 laboratory/analyst performance.
 " EDL = estimated detection limit, used to approximate the MDL.
 0 MDLs  are not specified for non-EPA (i.e., voluntary consensus standard) methods.	
Results of the Analysis of the WS Data

a.  Method Usage Over Time

    Figure 11 shows the distribution of analytical techniques used by EPA and State laboratories
for WS studies 34 to 41.  The results for "other" techniques in this figure include the use of any
other technique identified by the laboratories participating in the WS study, as well as
"unknown" methods, i.e., methods for which laboratories did not report any information on the
type of method used. During WS 34 and 35, EPA Method 213.2 was the most widely used
method for determining cadmium in drinking water. EPA Methods 200.7, 200.8, and 200.9 were
all used with relatively the same frequency by the participating laboratories in the PE studies.
Use of SM 3113B lessened over the period between WS 36 and 41.
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
  30
        Final - March 2003

-------
     Figure 11.  Distribution of Analytical Techniques by WS Study: Cadmium

                                         Cadmium
          100%

          90%

          80%

       o  70%
       .c
       •4-i
       0)
          60%
       O)

          40%
20%

10%

 0%
                    1
                                                                   • 200.7
                                                                   D 200.8
                                                                   1200.9
                                                                   • 213.2
                                                                   13TBB
                                                                   |On-ER
                 VVS34   VVS35
                      WS36    WS37    WS38    WS39
                               V\6ter Study
VVS40    VVS41
b. Results of the PQL Analysis

   The current PQL of 2.0 |ig/L was originally set using PE data from WS 22 through 25 (56 FR
3549). With the availability of more current data from WS 24 to 41, a PQL re-evaluation was
attempted.  Table 13 summarizes the results of these water studies, providing the study number,
the spiked value for the WS sample, the number of results from EPA and State laboratories, and
the cadmium results evaluated using an acceptance limit of ± 20 percent, as designated in 40
CFR§
Table 13.     Evaluation of Cadmium Data from WS Studies Using the 20% Acceptance
              Limits (In  Order of Increasing Concentration)
ws#
38
35
29
32
40
26b
Spiked "True" Value 
-------
ws#
37
24b
31
24a
41
34
25
39
27
36
30
o o
JJ
26a
Spiked "True" Value (ng/L)
10.2
10.4
12.8
15.4
18.2
23.0
27.6
28.5
29.3
34.0
39.0
49.0
53.9
# Results from EPA and
State Labs
51
61
35
61
45
65
40
54
40
66
66
38
62
% Labs Passing ± 20%
Acceptance Limits
98.0
95.1
91.4
90.2
95.6
96.9
100
98.1
92.5
98.5
98.5
97.4
96.8
    The data in Table 13 were not adequate to perform a PQL re-evaluation. EPA's preferred
format for evaluating a PQL is to develop a regression (or graphical analysis) using the true
value concentration and the percentage of laboratories passing the performance evaluation.  The
PQL is then set at a concentration in which 75 percent of those laboratories pass. In this
instance, however, the participating laboratories passed the evaluation at an average rate of 93
percent, well above the 75 percent criterion. Also, all of the spiked "true" values were well
above the original PQL of 2 |ig/L.

Conclusion for Cadmium

    A comparison of the analytical methods approved during and after the promulgation of the
NPDWR for cadmium show that the four current methods have sensitivities similar to, or slightly
better than, those of the original methods, with EPA Method 200.9 being the most sensitive (with
an MDL of 0.05  |ig/L). Laboratories that participated in the PE water studies chose to utilize
EPA Method 213.2 in the WS studies prior to WS 36 but then chose to utilize EPA Methods
200.7, 200.8, and 200.9 with similar frequency.  Review and analysis of the PE data did not
result in the estimation of a new PQL because all of the EPA and State laboratories in the WS
studies evaluated surpassed the required 75 percent criterion typically used to determine a new
PQL. In addition, all of the WS spike concentrations were above the current PQL of 2 |ig/L.
However, laboratory passing rates of greater than 85 percent at concentrations slightly above the
current PQL suggest that the PQL could be lower.
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
32
Final - March 2003

-------
Carbofuran

Results of the Method Comparison

   At the promulgation of the NPDWRs for synthetic organic chemicals (56 FR 3552), one
analytical method (EPA Method 531.1) was approved for determination of carbofuran in
drinking water.  One additional method, Standard Method (SM) 6610, has been included as a
currently approved method for carbofuran analysis. Both current methods use the HPLC
technique and have similar MDLs.  Table 14 summarizes the approved methods,  both past and
present, for determination of carbofuran.
Table 14.     Results of the Analytical Methods Comparison for Carbofuran (Newly
             Promulgated Methods in Bold)
MCL = 40
Hg/L Current PQL = 7 ng/L DI/ = 0.9[ig/L Acceptance Limit* = ± 45%
Methods Approved At Promulgation
Method
EPA 531. 11

Technique
HPLC

MDL
(ng/L)
1.51

Currently Approved Methods (141.24)
Method
EPA 531. 12
SM66103
Technique
HPLC
HPLC
MDL
(ng/L)
0.52
0.53
1 "Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water," EPA/600/4-88/039, December
1988.
2 "Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water-- Supplement III," EPA/600/R-
95/131, August 1995.
3 Supplement to the 18th edition of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 1994,
American Public Health Association, 1015 Fifteenth Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20005.
' Regulatory DLs for organic compounds are listed at 40 CFR § 141.24(h)(18).
f Acceptance limits for organic compounds are listed at 40 CFR § 141.24(h)(19)(i).
" EDL = estimated detection limit, used to approximate the MDL.
Results of the Analysis of the WS Data

a.  Method Usage Over Time

   Figure 12 illustrates the methods chosen by EPA and State laboratories for carbofuran
analysis during WS PE studies 34 to 41.  The category of "other" includes any unidentified or
unreported techniques used by participating laboratories. As shown in Figure 12, the
predominant method used by laboratories participating in the WS studies is EPA Method 531.1.
The smallest percentage of labs using this method is 91.7 percent (in WS 37), indicating wide
usage compared to SM 6610 or any other available methods.
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
33
Final - March 2003

-------
     Figure 12.  Distribution of Analytical Techniques by WS Study: Carbofuran

                                       Carbofuran
       3
        D)
        I/)
       £
        re
UU"/o -
90% •
80% ~
70% •
60% •
50% "
40% "
30% "
20% "
10% "
no/.































— I










	 !










-|










	 !





















	 !












E531.1
Bother

                WS34   WS35  WS36   WS 37  WS 38   WS 39  WS 40   WS 41

                                        Water Study
b. Results of the PQL Analysis

   The current PQL of 7 |ig/L was derived from multiplying the interlaboratory method
detection limit (IMDL) of 0.7 |ig/L by a factor often (54 FR 22062).  To conduct a PQL re-
evaluation, the numerical data from WS 24 to 41 were analyzed (no data were available for WS
28).  Table 15 summarizes each WS result including the spiked (or "true") value, the number of
participating laboratories, and the percentage of laboratories passing within the specified
acceptance limit for carbofuran (± 45 percent of the spiked value, as specified in 40 CFR
Table 15.     Evaluation of Carbofuran Data from WS Studies Using the 45% Acceptance
              Limits (in Order of Increasing Concentration)
ws#
29
30
32
31
24a
Spiked "True" Value
(Hg/L)
4.00
5.78
7.67
11.3
15.6
# Results from EPA and
State Labs
10
26
36
14
11
% Labs Passing
± 45% Acceptance Limits
100
92
94
86
100
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
34
Final - March 2003

-------
ws#
26b
34
27
25a
33
38
26a
36
35
41
24b
25b
37
40
39
Spiked "True" Value
(ng/L)
17.5
18.5
20.7
24.2
24.8
33.6
36.3
37.8
42.8
43.7
44.5
48.3
48.9
55.0
74.5
# Results from EPA and
State Labs
13
43
8
5
33
42
13
47
60
29
11
5
36
42
31
% Labs Passing
± 45% Acceptance Limits
92
91
88
80
94
95
100
98
92
97
100
100
97
100
97
   Re-evaluation of the PQL by a linear regression approach was not feasible using the data
shown in Table 15.  The percentage of laboratories passing within the acceptance limit was well
above the 75 percent criterion historically used to calculate the PQL. Also, very few (e.g., only
WS 29, 30, and 32) of the WS studies provided a sample with a true value concentration near the
original PQL.  Because of these data limitations, the PQL could not be re-evaluated using the
historical linear regression approach.  Instead, at concentrations approaching nearly half of the
current PQL, laboratories in WS 29 were observed to achieve a 100 percent passing rate,
implying strong analytical capabilities at a low concentration.  This observation could have
implications for lowering the PQL.

Conclusion for Carbofuran

   Since the time of promulgation of the original methods, one new method (SM 6610) has been
added for carbofuran analysis.  The current EPA Method 531.1 is nearly twice as sensitive as the
previous version, and the plot of method usage over time illustrates that EPA Method 531.1 was
the most commonly used method for the determination of carbofuran. Together, these facts
imply that analytical methods capabilities have improved over time.  The PE data from WS
studies 24 to 41, however, were not useful for a PQL re-evaluation because of the extremely high
number of laboratories passing within the accepted limit for carbofuran. While the high success
rate of laboratories at some low concentrations may present a potential argument for lowering
the PQL from 7 |ig/L, there are no data available to support changing the original PQL.
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
35
Final - March 2003

-------
Carbon Tetrachloride

Results of the Method Comparison

   In July 1987, the final NPDWR for eight Phase I VOCs approved the use of EPA Methods
502.1,  502.2, 524.1, and 524.2 for the determination of carbon tetrachloride in drinking water
(52 FR 25690).  The current approved methods for carbon tetrachloride determination are EPA
Methods 502.2,  524.2, and 551.1.  Table 16 summarizes the MDLs for both the original and
currently approved versions of the methods.  As shown in Table 16, EPA Method 551.1 has the
greater detection sensitivity than EPA Methods 502.2 and 524.2.
Table 16.     Results of the Analytical Methods Comparison for Carbon Tetrachloride
             (Newly Promulgated Methods are Indicated in Bold)
MCL = 5 (ig/L Current PQL = 5 jig/L DLA = 0.5 (ig/L Acceptance Limit* = ± 20% (>10 jig/L) or
± 40% (<10 ng/L)
Methods Approved At Promulgation
Method
EPA
502. 11
EPA
502.21
EPA
524. 11
EPA
524.21
Technique
Purge and Trap GC
Purge and Trap GC
Purge and Trap GC/MS
Purge and Trap GC/MS
MDL*
(ng/L)
0.003
0.01-
0.02*
0.3
0.08-
0.21*
Currently Approved Methods
Method
EPA 502.22
EPA 524.22
EPA 551.12

Technique
Purge and Trap GC
Purge and Trap GC/MS
LLE and GC with BCD

MDL*
(ng/L)
0.01-0.02
0.08-0.21
0.002 - 0.006

1 "Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water," EPA/600/4-88/039, December
1988.
2 "Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water— Supplement III," EPA/600/R-
95/131, August 1995.
* The MDLs of the original methods for this contaminant ranged from 0.2 - 0.5 ng/L according to the July 1987
Federal Register notice promulgating NPDWRs for the VOCs (52 FR 25690). However, the 1988 methods
manual cited in footnote llists the MDLs shown above.
* Multiple method detection limit (MDL) values result from variability of reagents, instrumentation and/or
laboratory /analyst performance.
- Regulatory DLs for VOCs are listed at 40 CFR § 141.24(f)(17).
t Acceptance limits are listed at 40 CFR § 141.24(f)(17)(i).
Results of the Analysis of the WS Data

a.  Method Usage Over Time

   The distribution of the different methods used by the EPA and State laboratories during WS
studies 34 to 41 are shown in Figure 13.  The category of "other" contains those methods that
were unknown or unidentified by the participating laboratories. As shown in Figure 13, EPA
Methods 524.2 and 502.2 are currently the preferred methods used by laboratories for
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
36
Final - March 2003

-------
determination of carbon tetrachloride.  Use of the original methods, EPA Methods 502.1 and
524.1, was not apparent over this time period; plotting data from studies prior to WS 34 might
reveal more information on the use of these methods.
      Figure 13. Distribution of Analytical Techniques by WS Study: Carbon Tetrachloride

                                    Carbon Tetrachloride


.c

s
D)
•«, 40/° -

j 30%
-i no/





























|










fl














..




,'









2















—

r '
•










2















•7



;-.»









n

	 1















fV
r '
J "
-1
'.. ':
.',.









2

















-,
- i .
'



























,-v











n

—



























^1




• 524.2
i— i cno o
Bother




                 WS34   WS35  WS36   WS 37   WS 38   WS 39  WS 40   WS41
                                          Water Study
b.  Results of the PQL Analysis

    The original PQL of 5 |ig/L (52 FR 25700) for carbon tetrachloride was determined from PE
data from WS 8 to 11. Re-evaluation of the PQL was attempted using data from WS studies 24
through 41.  Table 17 summarizes the results of these WS studies providing the study number,
the spiked value for the WS sample, the number of participating laboratories, and the percent of
laboratories passing the WS proficiency test for carbon tetrachloride within the specified
acceptance limits for carbon tetrachloride (± 20 percent for a true value greater than 10 |ig/L, or ±
40 percent for a true value lower than 10 |ig/L as specified at 141.24(f)(17)(i)).
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
37
Final - March 2003

-------
Table 17.     Evaluation of Carbon Tetrachloride Data from WS Studies Using Either
              20% or 40% Acceptance Limits (in Order of Increasing Concentration)
ws#
24
34
30
27
31
40
25
29
35
36
37
33
41
32
38
26
39
Spiked "True"
Value Oig/L)
4.56
6.27
6.46
8.48
8.69
8.90
9.18
10.4
10.8
12.6
12.7
13.4
14.2
14.5
15.6
16.7
19.2
# Results from EPA
and State Labs
56
60
59
37
36
57
37
36
34
59
47
34
40
55
54
59
42
% Labs Passing
± 20% Acceptance Limits







81
88
97
87
88
100
89
94
85
83
% Labs Passing
±40% Acceptance Limits
96
100
98
97
100
98
95










   From Table 17, it can be concluded that the available PE data for carbon tetrachloride are
insufficient for a PQL re-evaluation.  For the WS studies evaluated, the participating labs passed
the proficiency exams at a passing rates greater than the standard 75 percent acceptance criterion
used to determine the PQL.  In addition, only one WS study (WS 24) had a concentration lower
than the current PQL. However, passing rates of greater than 96 percent at concentrations close
to the current PQL suggest that the current PQL of 5 |ig/L could be possibly be lower.

Conclusion for Carbon Tetrachloride

   The method comparison results show that since the promulgation of analytical methods
under the NPDWR, three new methods (EPA Methods 502.2, 524.2, and 551.1) have replaced
the two original analytical methods (EPA Methods 502.1 and 524.1). While EPA Method 551.1
is the most sensitive of the three currently approved methods, this method is not currently used
by EPA or State laboratories according to the available WS data.  Instead, EPA Method 524.2,
the least sensitive of the three current methods, has  been the primary method of choice. The
MDL of EPA Method 524.2 is more sensitive than EPA  524.1 but less sensitive than EPA 502.1.
Evaluation of the quantitative PE data showed that the majority of the laboratories conducting
WS analyses surpassed the 75 percent criterion.  Because of the high percentage of laboratories
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
38
Final - March 2003

-------
passing and a lack of spike samples at concentrations below the current PQL, a re-evaluation of
the PQL could not be performed using this approach. However, high passing rates at values
close to the current PQL of 5 |ig/L suggest that a lower PQL is possible.
Chlordane

Results of the Method Comparison

   With the 1991 promulgation of the Phase II Rule for SOCs, three analytical methods were
approved for the determination of chlordane in drinking water: EPA Methods 505
(GC/microextraction), 508 (GC/ECD), and 525.1 (LSE/GC/MS) (56 FR 3526). Since the
promulgation of this rule, EPA Method 525.1 was removed and EPA Methods 525.2 (LSE,
GC/MS) and 508.1 (GC/LSE/ECD) were added to the approved list.  Table 18 lists detection
limits for these methods.  Using the highest value of the range of MDLs reported, EPA Methods
508 and 508.1 are both approximately 30 times more sensitive than EPA Method 505.
Table 18.     Results of the Analytical Methods Comparison for Chlordane (Newly
             Promulgated Methods are Indicated in Bold)
MCL = 2jig/L Current PQL = 2 jig/L DLA = 0.2jig/L Acceptance LimitT = ± 45%
Methods Approved At Promulgation
Method
EPA 505 '
EPA 5081
EPA
525. 11

Technique
Microextraction and
GC
GC with BCD
LSE and GC/MS

MDL
(Hg/L)
0.14
0.0015 '
0.1-
0.3*

Currently Approved Methods (141.24)
Method
EPA 5052
EPA 5082
EPA 508.12
EPA S25.22
Technique
Microextraction and
GC
GC with BCD
LSE and GC with BCD
LSE and GC/MS
MDL
(Hg/L)
0.14
0.0016-0.0041
*
0.001-0.004*
0.05-0.17*
1 "Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water," EPA-600/4-88/039, December
1988.
2 "Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water-- Supplement III,"
EPA/600/R-95/131, August 1995.
A Regulatory DLs for organic compounds are listed at 40 CFR §141.24(h)(18).
t Acceptance limits for organic compounds are listed at 40 CFR §141.24(h)(19)(i).
* Multiple method detection limit (MDL) values result from variability of reagents, instrumentation and/or
laboratory /analyst performance.
" EDL = estimated detection limit, used to approximate the MDL.
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
39
Final - March 2003

-------
Results of the Analysis of the WS Data

a.  Method Usage Over Time

   Figure 14 plots the distribution of analytical techniques used by EPA and State laboratories
in WS 34 to 41. The "other" techniques represent methods which were not specifically identified
by participating laboratories or were otherwise unknown.  As shown in Figure 14, the majority
of laboratories used EPA Method 508 for determination of chlordane in WS 34 to 41. EPA
Method 525.1, which was used quite minimally in earlier WS studies, was replaced by EPA
Method 525.2 in WS 36. Laboratories also began to employ EPA Methods 508.1 and 525.2
during WS 36. For WS 34 to 41, EPA Method 505 consistently remained the second-most
commonly used method after EPA Method 508.


     Figure 14.  Distribution of Analytical Techniques by WS Study: Chlordane

                                        Chlordane
IUU/0 ~
90% -
80% -
"§ 70% -
£
2 60% -
D)
•| 50% -
^
I 40% "
S? 30% -
20% -
10% -
no/.





-














Qj



p.







-













r



n
n • 1 1





1












,






in






]\k











-










Ifi













"










ll








._.


-


































\




• 505
0508

0508.1
0525.1
0525.2
• other


                WS34   WS35   WS36   WS 37   WS 38   WS 39

                                         Water Study
                    WS 40   WS 41
b. Results of the PQL Analysis

   The Agency derived the current chlordane PQL of 2 |ig/L by multiplying the detection limit
by a factor often (56 FR 3552).  With the availability of recent PE WS data, efforts were made
to reassess the PQL using PE data from WS 24 to 41.  Table 19 summarizes the data from these
WS studies, indicating the study number, the spiked or "true" value of the WS sample, the
number of results from EPA and State laboratories, and the calculated percentage of laboratories
whose results successfully passed within federally designated acceptance limits for chlordane.
These acceptance limits are specified in 40 CFR §141.24(h)(19)(i) to be ± 45 percent.
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
40
Final - March 2003

-------
Table 19.     Evaluation of Chlordane Data from WS Studies Using the 45% Acceptance
              Limits (in Order of Increasing Concentration)
ws#
29
24a
27
26a
33
41
25a
39
30
37
24b
31
32
34
38
26b
40
25b
35
36
Spiked "True" Value 
-------
time of NPDWR promulgation.  The available WS data do not support a reassessment of the
PQL based on the 75 percent criterion, however, because the passing rates of laboratories always
exceeded this value. Because such high passing rates were observed for some low spiked
concentrations (e.g., 88 percent laboratory success for a concentration 2.5 times lower than the
current PQL), it is possible that a lowered PQL might be appropriate. However, the desired
quantitative reassessment of the PQL could not be performed using the historical approach.
Chromium

Results of the Method Comparison

   In 1991, the Phase II rule for lOCs listed EPA Methods 218.2 (AAF) and 200.7A (ICP) and
Standard Method 304 (AAF) as the approved methods for determination of chromium in
drinking water (57 FR 31776). Since that time, EPA Method 218.2 has been removed from the
list of approved methods and four new methods have been added: two EPA Methods (200.8,
ICP/MS; and 200.9, AAP); and two Standard Methods (3113B, AAF; and 3120B, ICP). The
sensitivity of EPA Method 200.9 exhibits approximately ten times the sensitivity of the prior
methods. The detection limits of the Standard Methods are not specified. Table 20 summarizes
the MDL information for all current and former approved methods.
Table 20.     Results of the Analytical Methods Comparison for Chromium (Newly
             Promulgated Methods in Bold)
MCL=100jj,g/L Current PQL = 10 jj,g/L DL' = l-7|ig/L Acceptance Limit* = ± 15%
Methods Approved At Promulgation
Method
EPA 200.7A1
EPA218.22
SM 3045


Technique
ICP
AAF
AAF


MDL
(Hg/L)
0.61
I1
N/A°


Currently Approved Methods (141.23)
Method
EPA 200.73
EPA 200.83
EPA 200.93
SM 3113B4
SM 3120B4
Technique
ICP
ICP/MS
AAP
AAF
ICP
MDL
(Hg/L)
4
0.08-0.9*
0.1
N/A°
N/A°
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
42
Final - March 2003

-------
 1 "Inductively-Coupled Plasma Atomic Emission Analysis of Drinking Water," Appendix to Method 200.7,
 March 1987, U.S. EPA, Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH 45268.
 2 "Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes (MCAWW)," EPA/600/4-79/020, March 1983.
 3 "Methods for the Determination of Metals in Environmental Samples Supplement I," EPA/600/R-94/111, May
 1994.
 4 Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. American Public Health Association, 1015
 Fifteenth Street NW, Washington, DC 20005.
 5 16th edition of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater,  1985, American Public Health
 Association, American Water Works Association, Pollution Control Federation.
 * Multiple method detection limit (MDL) values result from variability of reagents, instrumentation, and/or
 laboratory/analyst performance.
 * Regulatory DLs for inorganic compounds are listed at 40 CFR §141.23(a)(4)(i).  The value may vary depending
 on analytical technique.
 f Acceptance limits are listed at 40 CFR §141.23(k)(3)(ii) for inorganic compounds.
 0 MDLs are not specified for non-EPA (i.e., voluntary consensus standard) methods.
 ' EDL = estimated detection limit, used to approximate the MDL.	
Results of the Analysis of the WS Data

a.  Method Usage Over Time

    The distribution of analytical methods used by participating laboratories from WS 34 to 41 is
shown in Figure 15.  The  results for "other" techniques in this figure include the use of any other
technique identified by the laboratories participating in the WS study, as well as "unknown"
methods, i.e., methods for which laboratories did not report any information on the type  of
method used. During WS 34 and 35, EPA Methods 200.7 and 218.2 were the most widely used
among laboratories participating in the PE studies. By WS 36, EPA Method 218.2 was no longer
in use.  Overall, EPA Method 200.7 remained the most commonly used method during WS 34-
41. Voluntary consensus  standard methods SM 3120 and SM 3113B were also used in many
WS studies.
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review       43                         Final - March 2003

-------
     Figure 15.  Distribution of Analytical Techniques by WS Study: Chromium

                                        Chromium
        100%
               WS34   WS35
VVS36   VVS37   VVS38    WS39
         Wrter Study
MS40   VVS41
b. Results of the PQL Analysis

   The current PQL of 10 |ig/L was derived using earlier PE data from WS 24 through 27 (56
FR 3549). For the PQL re-evaluation, data were taken from a broader range of studies, including
more recent PE data (WS 24 to 41).  The results of these water studies, providing the study
number, the spiked value for the WS sample, the number of results from EPA and State
laboratories, and the reported results evaluated using an acceptance limit of ± 15 percent
(§141.23(k)(3)(ii)) are summarized in Table 21.
Table 21.     Evaluation of Chromium Data from WS Studies Using the 15% Acceptance
             Limits (in Order of Increasing Concentration)
ws#
34
25a
39
24b
36
26a
Spiked "True" Value 
-------
ws#
41
25b
32
37
27
31
40
26b
29
35
24a
38
o o
JJ
30
Spiked "True" Value (ng/L)
55.5
60.0
68.1
72.9
75.3
81.6
90.9
94.6
110
119
127
148
159
200
# Results from EPA and State
Labs
47
42
67
51
35
38
65
64
33
43
62
66
35
66
% Labs Passing ± 15%
Acceptance Limits
100
95.2
95.5
98.0
94.3
92.1
96.9
93.8
87.9
90.7
88.7
95.5
91.4
93.9
    A re-evaluation of the PQL could not be performed using the available PE data in Table 21.
To conduct a graphical PQL analysis requires laboratory success rates ranging below the 75
percent criterion, which participating laboratories consistently surpassed (achieving a passing
rate of greater than 87 percent for all the WS studies evaluated). Furthermore, the spiked
concentrations used in each water study were above the original PQL (10 |ig/L).

Conclusion for Chromium

    The method comparison results indicate that some methods approved after the promulgation
of the Phase II Rule are more sensitive than the original methods (one of which was
discontinued). Currently the most sensitive method is EPA Method 200.9 (AAP).  However,
according to the plot of method usage over time, EPA Method 200.7 (ICP) consistently has
remained the most frequent choice for EPA and State laboratories, and the MDL of this method
has not changed significantly.  These facts suggest no significant alteration to the analytical
capabilities of laboratories. Using the designated ±15 percent acceptance limit, the evaluation
of recent WS data revealed that these data are outside a range that would allow for a re-
evaluation of the PQL.  Thus, the PE data continue to support the existing PQL of 10 |ig/L.
l,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP)

Results of the Method Comparison

    The NPDWR for DBCP, a Phase II SOC, listed EPA Method 504 (GC with microextraction)
as the only approved method for determination of this compound (56 FR 3526). Since then,
EPA has replaced this method with EPA Methods 504.1  and 551.1.  Table 22 summarizes the
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
45
Final - March 2003

-------
approved methods at promulgation and currently approved methods.  EPA Method 504.1 has a
MDL roughly equal to the MDL of the original EPA Method 504.
Table 22.     Results of the Analytical Methods Comparison for DBCP (Newly
             Promulgated  Methods are Indicated in Bold)
MCL = 0.2 p,g/L Current PQL = 0.2 ng/L DLA = 0.02 [ig/L Acceptance Limit* = ± 40%
Methods Approved At Promulgation
Method
EPA 5041

Technique
Microextraction and
GC

MDL*
(Hg/L)
0.01

Currently Approved Methods (141.24)
Method
EPA 504. 12
EPA 551.12
Technique
Microextraction and GC
LLE and GC with BCD
MDL*
(Hg/L)
0.01
0.006 - 0.009
*
1 "Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water," EPA/600/4-88/039, December
1988.
2 "Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water-- Supplement III,"
EPA/600/R-95/131, August 1995.
A Regulatory DLs for organic compounds are listed at 40 CFR §141.24(h)(18).
t Acceptance limits for organic compounds are listed at 40 CFR §141.24(h)(19)(i).
* Multiple method detection limit (MDL) values result from variability of reagents, instrumentation and/or
laboratory /analyst performance.
Results of the Analysis of the WS Data

a.  Method Usage Over Time

   Figure 16 is a plot of the distribution of analytical techniques used by EPA and State
laboratories in WS 34 to 41. The "other" techniques represent methods that were not specifically
identified by participating laboratories or were otherwise unknown.  As shown in Figure 16, the
majority of laboratories used EPA Method 504.1 during WS studies  34 to 41. The other recently
approved method, EPA Method 551, was only used minimally during WS 36 to 39.
Participating laboratories chose "other" methods approximately 10 to 15 percent of the time.
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
46
Final - March 2003

-------
    Figure 16. Distribution of Analytical Techniques by WS Study: DBCP

                                         DBCP
          100%
       •a
       o
        O)
        c
        'in
        3
        J2
90%

80%

70% -

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10% -

 0%
                WS34   WS35   WS36  WS 37   WS 38   WS 39   WS 40   WS 41

                                       Water Study
b. Results of the PQL Analysis

   For DBCP, the original PQL of 0.2 |ig/L was derived by multiplying the detection limit of
0.02 |ig/L by a factor often (56 FR 3551).  Recent PE data from WS 26 to 41 have enabled EPA
to attempt a reassessment of the PQL.  Table 23 summarizes the data from these WS studies
(except WS 33 which did not contain data), indicating the study number, the true value of the
WS sample, the number of results from EPA and State laboratories, and the calculated
percentage of laboratories whose results successfully passed within the 40 percent acceptance
limits for DBCP.
Table 23.     Evaluation of DBCP Data from WS Studies Using the ± 40% Acceptance
             Limits (in Order of Increasing Concentration)
ws#
36
32
39
37
34
Spiked "True" Value (u.g/L)
0.196
0.233
0.246
0.286
0.363
# Results from EPA and
State Labs
50
24
36
42
45
% Labs Passing ± 40%
Acceptance Limits
92.0
95.8
91.7
88.1
88.9
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
                               47
Final - March 2003

-------
ws#
38
41
40
35
27
29
26
31
30
Spiked "True" Value (ng/L)
0.429
0.451
0.527
0.589
0.653
0.980
1.13
1.78
2.65
# Results from EPA and
State Labs
48
34
50
29
18
39
35
44
24
% Labs Passing ± 40%
Acceptance Limits
97.9
100
98.0
93.1
88.9
94.9
88.6
97.7
91.7
   Based on the data in Table 23, a revised PQL value could not be estimated because the
passing rate of participating laboratories surpassed the 75 percent criterion needed.  Also, the
true values of the spiked samples in all but one study (WS 36) were greater than the existing
PQL, limiting potential conclusions regarding a lower PQL. Therefore, a regression analysis
was not performed. However, high passing rates at concentrations around the current PQL of 0.2
l-ig/L are suggestive of a change in the PQL.

Conclusion for DBCP

   The MDL of EPA Method 504.1,  a GC-microextraction technique, has not changed
substantially since the promulgation of the NPDWR for DBCP. According to recent WS study
data, laboratories have elected to use  EPA Method 504.1 more often than EPA Method 551.1.
These observations imply that detection limits for the overall contaminant have remained fairly
constant over time. Using the data compiled from WS 26 to 41, the current PQL was reassessed.
However,  laboratories in all studies surpassed the 75  percent passing rate used in a PQL re-
evaluation, such that a regression analysis was not attempted.  Furthermore, the true value
concentrations exhibited in almost all of the studies were higher than the current PQL,  meaning
that the effects of lower PQL could not be determined. Although, the available PE data were not
suitable to recalculate a new PQL, the high passing rates are suggestive of a change in the PQL.
1,4-Dichlorobenzene (para-dichlorobenzene)

Results of the Method Comparison

   With the promulgation of the final rule for Phase I VOCs in July 1987 (52 FR 25690), five
approved methods were listed for the determination of 1,4-dichlorobenzene (also known as para-
dichlorobenzene) in drinking water: EPA Methods 502.1, 502.2, 503.1, 524.1, and 524.2. Since
the promulgation of this rule, the Agency has removed EPA Methods 502.1, 503.1, and 524.1
from the list of approved methods.  The detection limits of the currently approved  methods have
not changed significantly from the methods approved at the time of promulgation.  Table 24
summarizes the original and current methods and their MDLs.
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
48
Final - March 2003

-------
Table 24.    Results of the Analytical Methods Comparison for 1,4-Dichlorobenzene
MCL = 75 (ig/L Current PQL = 5 jig/L DLA = 0.5 (ig/L Acceptance Limit* = ± 20% (>10 jig/L) or
± 40% (<10 ng/L)
Methods Approved At Promulgation
Method
EPA
502. 11
EPA
502.21
EPA
503. 11
EPA
524. 11
EPA
524.21
Technique
Purge and Trap GC
Purge and Trap GC
Purge and Trap GC
Purge and Trap GC/MS
Purge and Trap GC/MS
MDL°
(ng/L)
ND
0.01-
0.04*
0.006
2.0
0.03-
0.04*
Currently Approved Methods (141.24)
Method
EPA 502.22
EPA 524.22



Technique
Purge and Trap GC
Purge and Trap GC/MS



MDL*
(ng/L)
0.01-0.04
0.03-0.04



1 "Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water," EPA/600/4-88/039, December
1988.
2 "Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water-- Supplement III," EPA/600/R-
95/131, August 1995.
* The MDLs of the original methods for this contaminant ranged from 0.2 - 0.5 [ig/L according to the July 1987
Federal Register notice promulgating NPDWRs for the VOCs (52 FR 25690). However, the 1988 methods
manual cited in footnote 1 lists the MDLs shown above.
* Multiple method detection limit (MDL) values result from variability of reagents, instrumentation and/or
laboratory /analyst performance.
- Regulatory DLs for VOCs are listed at 40 CFR § 141.24(f)(17).
t Acceptance limits for organic compounds are listed at 40 CFR § 141.24(f)(17)(i).
ND = Not determined.
Results of the Analysis of the WS Data

a.  Method Usage Over Time

   The distribution of different methods used by EPA and State laboratories during WS 34 to 41
is charted in Figure 17.  The category of "other" methods includes those methods that were
unknown or otherwise unidentified by the participating laboratories. During WS 34 to 41, the
use of EPA Method 524.2 increased while use of EPA Method 502.2 diminished slightly.
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
49
Final - March 2003

-------
     Figure 17. Distribution of Analytical Techniques by WS Study: 1,4-
     Dichlorobenzene

                                    1,4 Dichlorobenzene
I UU"/o
90% -
80% -
70% -
60% -
50% -
40% -
30% -
20% -
10% -
no/.







.-

.



_



•










•_
—


	



_




a.
—


—



_




a.
—


-



_




•
—

•
—
















_




•_
!,


-








•



0502.2
0524.2
• other



               WS 34   WS 35   WS 36
WS 37   WS 38

  Water Study
WS 39   WS 40   WS 41
b.  Results of the PQL Analysis

    The original PQL of 5 |ig/L for 1,4-dichlorobenzene was determined by using PE data from
Water Supply Studies 8 to 11 (50 FR 46880). For the six-year regulatory review, more recent
WS data were compiled to provide a more accurate, updated assessment of laboratory
capabilities. Hence, data from WS studies 24 to 27 and 29 to 41 were used to attempt to re-
evaluate the PQL.  Table 25 summarizes the available PE data by providing the study number,
spiked value for the WS sample, number of laboratory results, and percentage of laboratories
passing the proficiency test within the acceptance limits, meaning their reported results fall
within the designated acceptance limits for a particular contaminant. The acceptance limits for
1,4-dichlorobenzene are ± 20 percent for a true value greater than 10 |ig/L, or ± 40 percent for a
true value lower than 10 jig/L (as specified at 40 CFR  § 141.24(f)(17)(i)).
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
    50
              Final - March 2003

-------
Table 25.     Evaluation of 1,4-Dichlorobenzene Data from WS Studies Using the ± 20%
              or ±  40% Acceptance Limits (in Order of Increasing Concentration)
ws#
24
34
29
37
31
27
40
36
32
38
26
33
41
30
35
39
25
Spiked "True"
Value Oig/L)
2.50
5.78
6.60
7.31
9.40
9.58
11.6
11.9
13.6
14.2
14.6
15.1
15.8
16.1
16.7
17.8
20.8
# Results from EPA
and State Labs
57
59
34
47
36
38
57
60
61
54
60
33
42
58
33
42
37
% Labs Passing ± 20%
Acceptance Limits






87.7
95.0
93.4
55.6
93.3
87.9
92.9
84.5
97.0
88.1
83.8
% Labs Passing ± 40%
Acceptance Limits
96.5
100
97.1
95.7
97.2
100











   Because a very large percentage of EPA and State laboratories passed the proficiency test
within the bounds of the designated acceptance limits, the PQL could not be determined using
the historical 75 percent criterion.  Therefore, a regression analysis could not be conducted.
However, the high passing rates suggest that the PQL could be lower.

Conclusion for 1.4-Dichlorobenzene

   Since the promulgation of the NPDWR for 1,4-dichlorobenzene, the two analytical methods
approved in 1987, EPA Methods 502.2 and 524.2, are still approved for use today.  According to
the distribution of analytical methods usage over time, EPA Method 524.2 was more widely used
than EPA Method 502.2 during WS 34 to 41.  Upon review of the WS data, a high percentage of
laboratories successfully passed the proficiency tests, preventing a graphical estimated
assessment of the PQL at the 75 percent passing rate. Although the available PE data are
insufficient to recalculate the PQL, high passing rates are suggestive of a change in the PQL.
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
51
Final - March 2003

-------
1,2-Dichloroethane

Results of the Method Comparison

    The approved drinking water methods for the determination of 1,2-dichloroethane, a Phase I
VOC (52 FR 25690) are EPA Methods 502.1, 502.2, 524.1, and 524.2. These methods all utilize
GC or GC/MS with several extraction and/or detector variations.  Since promulgation of these
original methods, the Agency has removed EPA Methods 502.1 and 524.1 from the list of
approved methods, and has continued to approve the use of EPA Methods 502.2 and 524.2.
Table 26 summarizes the current and previous EPA methods along with their MDLs.


Table 26.      Results of the Analytical Methods Comparison for 1,2-Dichloroethane
MCL = 5 [ig/L Current PQL = 5 |ig/L DLA = 0.5 [ig/L Acceptance Limit* = ± 20% (>10 p,g/L) or
± 40% (<10 jig/L)
Methods Approved At Promulgation
Method
EPA
502. 11
EPA
502.21
EPA
524. 11
EPA
524.21
Technique
Purge and Trap GC
Purge and Trap GC
Purge and Trap GC/MS
Purge and Trap GC/MS
MDLO
(Hg/L)
0.002
0.03
0.2
0.02-
0.06*
Currently Approved Methods
Method
EPA 502.2 2
EPA 524.2 2


Technique
Purge and Trap GC
Purge and Trap GC/MS


MDL
(Hg/L)
0.03
0.02-0.06*


1 "Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water," EPA/600/4-88/039, December
1988.
2 "Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water-- Supplement III," EPA/600/R-
95/131, August 1995.
* The MDLs of the original methods for this contaminant ranged from 0.2 - 0.5 ng/L according to the July 1987
Federal Register notice promulgating NPDWRs for the VOCs (52 FR 25690). However, the 1988 methods
manual cited in footnote 1 lists the MDLs shown above.
* Multiple method detection limit (MDL) values result from variability of reagents, instrumentation and/or
laboratory /analyst performance.
- Regulatory DLs for VOCs are listed at 40 CFR § 141.24(f)(17).
t Acceptance limits are listed at 40 CFR § 141.24(f)(17)(i).
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
52
Final - March 2003

-------
Results of the Analysis of the WS Data

a.  Method Usage Over Time

   The types of methods used over time by the EPA and State laboratories during WS studies 34
to 41 are illustrated in Figure 18.  The results for "other" techniques in this figure include any
unknown or unreported methods.  Using Figure  18, it is apparent that the percentage of labs
using EPA Method 502.2 has steadily declined while EPA Method 524.2 has experienced an
increase in use over the time period between WS studies 34 and 41.
     Figure 18.  Distribution of Analytical Techniques by WS Study: 1,2-Dichloroethane

                                   1,2-Dichloroethane
          80%
                WS34   WS35   WS36   WS 37   WS 38   WS 39   WS 40   WS 41
                                        Water Study


b. Results of the PQL Analysis

   The original PQL of 5 |ig/L (52 FR 25700) for 1,2-dichloroethane was established by using
the data from WS PE studies 8 to 11. To re-evaluate the PQL, data were taken from WS 24 to
41. This data, including the study number, the spiked or "true" value for the WS sample, the
number of laboratory results, and the percent of laboratories passing within the accepted limits of
± 20 percent for a spiked value of > 10 |ig/L and ± 40 percent for a spiked value of < 10 |ig/L,
are compiled and illustrated in Table 27.
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
53
Final - March 2003

-------
Table 27.    Evaluation of 1,2-Dichloroethane Data from WS Studies Using Either 20%
             or 40% Acceptance Limits (in Order of Increasing Concentration)
ws#
27
30
36
31
26
34
29
24
37
32
41
35
25
38
40
33
39
Spiked "True"
Value Gig/L)
4.88
7.69
9.00
9.25
10.8
12.1
12.9
13.2
13.2
13.3
13.7
14.1
15.5
15.6
15.6
16.9
17.6
# Results from EPA
and State Labs
37
59
59
36
59
60
34
56
47
63
41
34
38
54
57
35
42
% Labs Passing
± 20% Acceptance Limit




95
98
79
89
81
94
93
94
90
93
88
97
86
% Labs Passing
± 40% Acceptance Limit
100
98
100
100













   As shown in Table 27, the percentage of laboratories passing the acceptance limit averaged
over 90 percent which is well above the 75 percent passing criterion selected to determine the
PQL. Also, the spiked (or "true") values which the laboratories received were higher than the
original PQL of 5 |ig/L (with the exception of WS 27). Therefore, recalculation of the PQL
could not be performed with these data. However, the high passing rates at concentrations close
to the current PQL suggest that the PQL could be lower.

Conclusion for 1.2-Dichloroethane

   EPA Methods 502.2 and 524.2 have remained approved analytical methods for the
determination of 1,2-dichloroethane in drinking water since promulgation of analytical methods
under Phase I.  One of the original methods, EPA Method 502.1, had the greatest detection
sensitivity of the four methods mentioned but is currently not approved for analysis. The method
usage evaluation shows that, of the two currently  approved methods, EPA Method 524.2 has
steadily become the more preferred method of analysis by  laboratories.  Based on an analysis of
the WS data, there are not enough appropriate data to conduct a reassessment of the PQL.
However, high laboratory passing rates at concentrations close to the PQL 5 |ig/L are suggestive
of a change in the PQL.
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
54
Final - March 2003

-------
1,1-Dichloroethylene

Results of the Method Comparison

    The analytical methods approved for the determination of 1,1-dichloroethylene under the
NPDWRs for Phase I VOCs include EPA Methods 502.1, 503.1, and 524.1 (52 FR 25899).
Since the promulgation of the rule in 1987, the Agency has added EPA Methods 502.2 and
524.2, to the list of approved methods. The currently approved methods for 1,1-dichloroethylene
determination are EPA Methods 502.2 and 524.2.  Table 28 summarizes the MDLs for both the
original and current approved versions of the methods.
Table 28.     Results of the Analytical Methods Comparison for 1,1-Dichloroethylene
             (Newly Promulgated Methods Indicated in Bold)
MCL = 7 [ig/L Current PQL = 5 |ig/L DLA = 0.5 p,g/L Acceptance Limit* = ± 20% (>10 p,g/L) or
± 40% (<10 jig/L)
Methods Approved At Promulgation
Method
EPA
502. 11
EPA
524. 11
Technique
Purge and Trap GC
Purge and Trap GC/MS
MDL
(Hg/L)
0.003
0.2
Currently Approved Methods
Method
EPA 502.22
EPA S24.22
Technique
Purge and Trap GC
Purge and Trap GC/MS
MDL*
(Hg/L)
0.04-0.10
0.05-0.12
1 "Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water," EPA/600/4-88/039, December
1988.
2 "Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water-- Supplement III," EPA/600/R-
95/131, August 1995.
* The MDLs of the original methods for this contaminant ranged from 0.2 - 0.5 ng/L according to the July 1987
Federal Register notice promulgating NPDWRs for the VOCs (52 FR 25690). However, the 1988 methods
manual cited in footnote 1 lists the MDLs shown above.
* Multiple method detection limit (MDL) values result from variability of reagents, instrumentation and/or
laboratory /analyst performance.
* Regulatory DLs for organic compounds are listed at 40 CFR § 141.24(f)(17).
t Acceptance limits for VOCs are listed at 40 CFR § 141.24(f)(17)(i).
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
55
Final - March 2003

-------
Results of the Analysis of the WS Data
a.  Method Usage Over Time
   Figure 19 shows the distribution of analytical techniques used by EPA and State laboratories
for WS studies 34 to 41. The results for "other" techniques in this figure include the use of any
other technique identified by the laboratories participating in the WS study, as well as
"unknown" methods, i.e., methods for which laboratories did not report any information on the
type of method used. As shown in Figure 19, EPA Method 502.2 was used less as EPA Method
524.2 was used more often (as shown from WS 34 to 41).
     Figure 19. Distribution of Analytical Techniques by WS Study: 1,1-
     Dichloroethylene

                                       1,1-DcHoroethylene
              W634
                       W635
                               W636
                                       W637     W638

                                         Wter Study
                                                        W639
                                                                W640
                                                                        W641
b.  Results of the PQL Analysis
    The current PQL of 5 |ig/L was originally set using previous PE data (54 FR 22102). With
the availability of more current data from WS 24 to 41, a PQL re-evaluation was attempted.
Table 29 summarizes the results of these studies, including the study number, the spiked (or
"true") value for the sample, the number of laboratory results, and the percent of laboratories
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
56
Final - March 2003

-------
passing the WS proficiency test for 1,1-dichloroethylene within the acceptance limits.  The
acceptance limits were calculated as ± 20 percent for a spike value of >10 i-ig/L and ± 40 percent
for a spiked value of <10 |ig/L (as specified at 40 CFR §141.23(f)(17)(i)).
Table 29.     Evaluation of 1,1-Dichloroethylene Data from WS Studies Using Either 20%
              or 40% Acceptance Limits (in Order of Increasing Concentration)
ws#
41
24
26
31
34
36
32
27
29
38
39
33
35
30
25
37
40
Spiked "True"
Value 
-------
Conclusion for 1.1-Dichloroethylene


    The method comparison results indicate that EPA Method 502.2 is now the most sensitive
method for determination of 1,1-dichloroethylene in drinking water. As revealed by the results
of method usage over time, EPA Method 524.2 is the most commonly employed method for 1,1-
dichloroethylene determination in recent PE studies. Based on the evaluation of more recent
quantitative PE data, a recalculation of the PQL is not possible. However, the high laboratory
passing rates for a couple spike samples with concentrations slightly above the current PQL of 5
|ig/L suggest that the PQL could change.


Dichloromethane (methylene chloride)


Results of the Method Comparison


    At the promulgation of the Phase V rule for VOCs (57 FR 31776), four analytical methods
were approved (EPA Methods 502.1, 502.2, 524.1, and 524.2) for the analysis of
dichloromethane (also known as methylene chloride). Since that time, EPA Methods 502.1 and
524.1 have been removed from the approved list, leaving EPA Methods 502.2 and 524.2 as the
remaining currently approved methods. Table 30 provides descriptions of the methods and their
MDLs. The MDLs of the two current  methods remain unchanged from their values at the
promulgation of the rule.


Table 30.     Results of the Analytical Methods Comparison for Dichloromethane
 MCL = 5 ng/L   Current PQL = 5 ng/L   DL* = 0.5 jig/L    Acceptance Limit* = ± 20% (>10 ng/L) or
                                                                      ± 40%
Methods Approved At Promulgation
Method
EPA 502. 11
EPA 502.21
EPA 524. 11
EPA 524.21
Technique
Purge and Trap GC
Purge and Trap GC
Purge and Trap GC/MS
Purge and Trap GC/MS
MDL
(Hg/L)
ND
0.01-0.02*
1.0
0.03 - 0.09*
Currently Approved Methods (141.24)
Method
EPA 502.22
EPA 524.22


Technique
Purge and Trap GC
Purge and Trap GC/MS


MDL*
(Hg/L)
0.01-0.02
0.03 - 0.09


 1 "Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Finished Drinking Water and Raw Source Water,"
 June 1985.
 2 "Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water-Supplement III," EPA/600/R-95-
 131, August 1995.
 * Regulatory DLS for organic compounds are listed at 40 CFR 141.24(f)(17).
 t Acceptance limits for VOCs are listed at 40 CFR 141.24(f)(17)(i).
 * Multiple method detection limit (MDL) values result from variability of reagents, instrumentation, and/or
 laboratory/analyst performance.
 ND = Not determined.
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
58
Final - March 2003

-------
Results of the Analysis of the WS Data
a.  Method Usage Over Time
    The distribution of methods used over WS studies 34 to 41 is illustrated in Figure 20. The
designation "other" includes all unknown and unreported methods.  As illustrated in Figure 20,
EPA Method 524.2 was the predominant method used in these WS studies. Since WS 35, EPA
Method 524.2 has steadily increased in its usage, experiencing only a slight decrease in WS 41.
Even though EPA Method 502.2 features slightly better sensitivity than EPA Method 524.2,
laboratories favored EPA Method 524.2, which utilizes GC/MS.
     Figure 20.  Distribution of Analytical Techniques by WS Study: Dichloromethane

                                    Dichloromethane
          100%
       
-------
b. Results of the PQL Analysis
    Table 31 summarizes the results of the data from WS 26 to 41 for the use in the PQL re-
evaluation. Note that data for WS 24, 25, 27, 30, and 31 are not available for this analysis. Table
31 includes the WS number, the spiked "true" value, number of labs that participated in the
studies, and the percentage of those passing within the acceptance limit designated for
dichloromethane (± 20 percent if spiked "true" value is > 10 |ig/L or ± 40 percent if the spiked
"true" value is < 10 ng/L specified at 141.24(f)(17)(i)).
Table 31.     Evaluation of Dichloromethane Data from WS Studies Using Either 20% or
              40% Acceptance Limits (in Order of Increasing Concentration)
ws#
35
40
39
32
37
36
33
38
29
26
41
34
Spiked "True"
Value 
-------
Conclusion for Dichloromethane
    Since the promulgation of the Phase V rule, no new methods have been approved for the
analysis of dichloromethane, and analytical capabilities have remained essentially constant. Of
the currently approved methods, EPA Method 524.2 is used more frequently by laboratories for
the detection of dichloromethane, although it is not the most sensitive method available (EPA
Method 502.2). During WS 26 to 41, the percentage of laboratories passing was very high,
limiting the possibilities of re-evaluating the PQL using the historical 75 percent criterion.
Although, data are insufficient to recalculate the PQL, high passing rates at values close to the
current PQL suggest that the PQL could change.
1,2-Dichloropropane
Results of the Method Comparison
    The final NPDWR for 1,2-dichloropropane, a Phase IIVOC, has four approved methods:
EPA Methods 502.1, 502.2, 524.1, and 524.2.  Since that time, EPA Methods 502.1 and 524.1
have been removed from the approved list, leaving EPA Methods 502.2 and 524.2 as the
remaining currently approved methods. Table 32 provides descriptions of the methods and their
MDLs. The MDLs of the two current methods remain unchanged from their values at the
promulgation of the rule.
Table 32.    Results of the Analytical Methods Comparison for 1,2-Dichloropropane
MCL = 5 [ig/L Current PQL = 5 [ig/L DLA = 0.5 ng/L Acceptance Limits* = ± 20% (>10 ng/L) or
± 40% (<10 ng/L)
Methods Approved At Promulgation
Method
EPA 502. 11
EPA 502.21
EPA 524. 11
EPA 524.21
Technique
Purge and Trap GC
Purge and Trap GC
Purge and Trap GC/MS
Purge and Trap GC/MS
MDL
(Hg/L)
ND
0.01-0.03*
0.2
0.02 - 0.04*
Currently Approved Methods (141.24)
Method
EPA 502.22
EPA 524.22


Technique
Purge and Trap GC
Purge and Trap GC/MS


MDL*
(Hg/L)
0.01-0.03
0.02 - 0.04


Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
61
Final - March 2003

-------
 1 "Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water," EPA/600/4-88/039, December
 1988.

 2 "Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water—Supplement III," EPA/600/R-
 95/131, August 1995.

 * Multiple method detection limit (MDL) values result from variability of reagents, instrumentation and/or
 laboratory/analyst performance.
 ND = Not determined.
 * Regulatory DLs for organic compounds are listed at 40 CFR § 141.24(f)(17).

 t Acceptance limits for VOCs are listed at 40 CFR § 141.24(f)(17)(i).	
Results of the Analysis of the WS Data
a.  Method Usage Over Time
    For PE WS studies 34 to 41, the distribution of methods used by EPA and State laboratories
is illustrated by Figure 21. The category of "other" contains those methods that were unknown
or unidentified by participating laboratories. As Figure 21 shows, EPA Method 524.2 was the
preferred method for laboratories participating in WS 34 to 41.  For the most part, the use of
EPA Method 502.2 decreased over time.
    Figure 21. Distribution of Analytical Techniques by WS Study: 1,2-
    Dichloropropane

                                   1,2-Dichloropropane
1 UU"/*> -
90%
80% -
"§ 70% -
1 60%
O)
| 50%
3
jo 40% -
.3
SS 30%


20%
10% -
0% -



	

— i







.
.

. '















-i





















T
;,'. .

'r















,
— •
,.


















n

\.



















-i


'




















WS 34 WS 35 WS 36 WS 37 WS 38 WS 39










. — .
•

"1 rn














i —


-i

;,. ,

























D502.2
IH524.2
• other





WS 40 WS 41
                                        Water Study
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
62
Final - March 2003

-------
b. Results of the PQL Analysis
    The original PQL of 5 |ig/L (56 FR 3526) for 1,2-dichloropropane was determined by using
PE data from WS 18. A re-evaluation of the PQL was attempted using more recent data from
WS studies 29 through 41. Table 33 summarizes the results of these WS studies, including the
study number, the true value concentration of the spiked sample, the number of laboratory results
returned, and the percentage of laboratories passing the proficiency test within acceptance limits
of ± 20 percent for a true value greater than 10 |ig/L, or ± 40 percent for a true value lower than
10 [ig/L (as specified in 141.24(f)(17)).
Table 33.     Evaluation of 1,2-Dichloropropane Data from WS Studies Using the ± 20%
              or ±  40% Acceptance Limits (in Order of Increasing Concentration)
ws#
32
35
30
39
34
37
33
41
29
36
38
40
Spiked "True"
Value 
-------
Conclusion for 1.2-Dichloropropane
    The method comparison results show that no new methods have been approved since the
promulgation of the NPDWR for 1,2-dichloropropane. Evaluation of the quantitative PE data
showed that laboratories conducting WS analyses had surpassed the 75 percent criterion.
Because the data featured a large percentage of laboratories passing, and very high true value
concentrations, a re-evaluation of the PQL could not be performed using the typical graphical
estimation approach.  Thus, the available WS data are insufficient to recalculate the PQL for 1,2-
dichloropropane. However, high laboratory passing rates for WS studies with concentrations
close to the current PQL are suggestive of a change in the PQL.
2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dioxin)
Results of the Method Comparison
   2,3,7,8-TCDD, commonly known as dioxin, was listed with the Phase V SOCs (57 FR
31776). Dioxin has not had any new methods approved for analysis since the promulgation of
the NPDWRs for this contaminant. The MDL of the current method has remain unchanged from
the value at the time of promulgation.  Table 34 shows the specifications of EPA Method 1613 in
both past and current periods.
Table 34.    Results of the Analytical Methods Comparison for 2,3,7,8-TCDD
MCL = 30 pg/L Current PQL = 30 pg/L DLA = 5 pg/L
Methods Approved At Promulgation
Method
EPA 16131
Technique
high resolution
GC/MS (GC/HRMS)
MDL
(pg/L)
10
Acceptance Limit* =
± 2*S.D.
Currently Approved Methods (141.24)
Method
EPA 16132
Technique
high resolution
GC/MS (GC/HRMS)
MDL
(pg/L)
10
1 Method 1613: Tetra- Through Octa-Chlorinated Dioxins and Furans by Isotope Dilution HRGC/HRMS: Revision A,
USEPA, April 1990.
2 "Tetra-through Octa-Chlorinated Dioxins and Furans by Isotope-Dilution HRGC/HRMS," EPA/821/B-94/005, October
1994.
' Regulatory DLs for organic compounds are listed at 40 CFR 141.24(h)(18).
1 Acceptance limits for organic compounds are listed at 40 CFR 141 .24(h)(l 9)(i).
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
64
Final - March 2003

-------
Results of the Analysis of the WS Data
   WS data were not available for dioxin; hence, no analyses on these data could be performed.
Conclusion
   No new methods have been approved for the analysis of dioxin since the promulgation of the
NPDWRs. The sensitivity of EPA Method 1613 has remained the same. A re-evaluation of the
PQL could not be determined because no PE data were available for examination. Therefore, the
current PQL is likely to remain unchanged.
Diquat
Results of the Method Comparison
   Diquat became a regulated SDWA contaminant with the promulgation of the July 1992
Phase V rule for SOCs.  Table 35 compares the approved methods at promulgation with
currently approved methods. At the time of the Phase V regulation EPA Methods 549, was
approved for determination of diquat in drinking water (57 FR 31776).  In August 1992, EPA
Method 549 was replaced by an updated method, EPA Method 549.1. Because Method EPA
549.1 received approval so soon after the promulgation of the Phase V rule, it is listed in the
column of methods approved at promulgation in Table 35.  In 1999 EPA approved EPA Method
549.2 (64 FR 67450) and discontinued EPA Method 549.1.
Table 35.     Results of the Analytical Methods Comparison for Diquat (Newly
             Promulgated Methods Are Indicated in Bold)
MCL = 20ng/L Current PQL = 4 [ig/L DLA = 0.4ng/L Acceptance Limit* = ± 2*S.D.
Methods Approved At Promulgation
Method
EPA 5491
EPA
549. 12
Technique
LSE and with UV
LSE and HPLC with
UV
MDL
(Hg/L)
0.44
0.44-
0.51*
Currently Approved Methods (141.24)
Method
EPA S49.23

Technique
LSE and HPLC with UV

MDL
(Hg/L)
0.72

Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
65
Final - March 2003

-------
  1 "Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water-Supplement I," EPA/600/4-90/020,
  July 1990.

  2 "Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water—Supplement II," EPA/600/R-
  92/129, August 1992. (Note this method was not actually approved at the time of July 1992 Phase V
  promulgation but was approved immediately after.)

  3 "Analytical Methods for Chemical and Microbiological Contaminants and Revisions to Laboratory Certification
  Requirements ," Federal Register, Vol. 64, No. 230, pp. 67450-67467.

  A Regulatory DLs for organic compounds are listed at 40 CFR §141.24(h)(18).

  * Multiple method detection limit (MDL) values result from variability of reagents, instrumentation and/or
  laboratory/analyst performance.

  Acceptance limits for organic compounds are listed at are listed at 40 CFR §141.24(h)(19)(i).	
Results of the Analysis of the WS Data


a.  Method Usage Over Time


    The distribution of analytical techniques used by the EPA and State laboratories in WS 34 to
41 is shown in Figure 22. The "other" techniques represent methods which were not specifically
identified by participating laboratories or were otherwise unknown. EPA has consistently
approved a single method for diquat at any given time, EPA Method 549 was predominantly
used prior to WS 36 and EPA Method 549.1 was used predominantly after WS 36.
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review       66                          Final - March 2003

-------
     Figure 22. Distribution of Analytical Techniques by WS Study: Diquat

                                          Diquat
          100%
                WS34   WS35   WS36   WS 37   WS 38   WS 39   WS 40  WS 41

                                         Water Study
b. Results of the PQL Analysis
    The original PQL for diquat (4 |ig/L) was derived by using PE data from WS 23 to 27 (56 FR
60949). A reassessment of the PQL was attempted after compiling additional data from WS 24
to 41. However, for several of these available water studies, the number of participating
laboratories were too few (under ten) to include for consideration in the analysis.  After omitting
these studies, the remaining usable PE data were summarized, including the study number, the
true value of the WS sample, the number of results from EPA and State laboratories, and the
calculated percentage of laboratories whose results successfully passed within federally
designated acceptance limits (Table 36). The acceptance limits for diquat are specified in 40
CFR §141.24(h)(19)(i) to be twice the standard deviation, or ± 2*S.D., from the value "x"
(where x = aT+b and T represents the true value).


    Table 36 reveals that laboratory success rates ranged between 78.6 and 100  percent. Thus,
use of the 75 percent criterion for estimation of the PQL by the graphical method would be
meaningless.  The dataset is also incompatible with the goals of a PQL reassessment-particularly
a potential lowering of the PQL-because the concentrations of all the spiked samples exceeded
the current PQL. Also, the concentration of the spike samples was well above the PQL of 4
jig/L.
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
67
Final - March 2003

-------
Table 36.     Evaluation of Diquat Data from WS Studies Using the ± 2* S.D. Acceptance
             Limits (in Order of Increasing Concentration)
ws#
37
36
40
38
32
34
39
35
41
Spiked "True" Value
(Hg/L)
8.41
14.7
14.8
23.7
28.2
29.2
32.2
37.4
44.0
# Results from EPA and
State Labs
21
28
27
22
11
17
21
15
17
% Labs Passing ± 2* S.D.
Acceptance Limits
90.5
78.6
96.3
95.5
100
94.1
95.2
86.7
100
Conclusion for Diquat
   As shown by the results of the method comparison, few methods have been approved by
EPA for the determination of diquat. The analytical technology supporting the determination of
diquat has remained essentially unchanged over time. However, analytical capabilities have
improved. The original method, EPA Method 549, was less sensitive than today's method, EPA
Method 549.2, indicating significant analytical improvements. The plot of method usage over
time reveals that the techniques predominantly used by participating laboratories were EPA
Methods 549 (prior to WS 36) and 549.1 (subsequent to WS 36). Although the method
comparison indicates increased analytical capabilities, the available WS data did not provide
information suitable for a PQL reassessment. The percentage of laboratories passing within the
acceptance window was generally well above the 75 percent criterion for use in the linear
regression approach.
Ethylene Dibromide
Results of the Method Comparison
   With the Phase II SOCs (56 FR 3526), EPA 504, was the only approved method listed for
analysis of ethylene dibromide (EDB) in drinking water.  Since this regulation was promulgated,
the Agency has approved a new revision of GC with microextraction (EPA Method 504.1) and
approved an additional analytical method (EPA Method 551.1, LLE and GC with ECD). As
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
68
Final - March 2003

-------
shown in Table 37, the MDLs of EPA Methods 504 and 504.1 are equivalent, but EPA Method
551.1 offers a slightly greater level of sensitivity.
Table 37.     Results of the Analytical Methods Comparison for Ethylene Dibromide (New
              Methods in Bold)
MCL = 0.05 jig/L Current PQL = 0.05 jig/L DLA = 0.01jig/L Acceptance Limit* = ± 40%
Methods Approved At Promulgation
Method
EPA 5041

Technique
Microextraction and
GC

MDL
(Hg/L)
0.01

Currently Approved Methods (141.24)
Method
EPA 504.12
EPA 551.12
Technique
Microextraction and
GC
LLE and GC with BCD
MDL
(Hg/L)
0.01
0.007 -
0.008*
1 "Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water," EPA/600/4-88/039, December
1988.
2 "Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water— Supplement III," EPA/600/R-
95/131, August 1995.
A Regulatory DLs for organic compounds are listed at 40 CFR §141.24(h)(18).
f Acceptance limits are listed at 40 CFR §141.24(h)(19)(i).
* Multiple method detection limit (MDL) values result from variability of reagents, instrumentation and/or
laboratory /analyst performance.
Results of the Analysis of the WS Data
a.  Method Usage Over Time
   Figure 23 illustrates the distribution of the analytical techniques used by the EPA and State
laboratories in WS studies 34 to 41. The "other" designation includes methods for which
laboratories did not report any information on the method used or non-EPA methods. The use of
EPA Method 504.1 greatly exceeds the use of any other method.  This distribution is consistent
through the duration of the WS studies shown in Figure 23.
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
69
Final - March 2003

-------
    Figure 23. Distribution of Analytical Techniques by WS Study: Ethylene Dibromide

                                  Ethylene Dibromide
O)
'3>


ro

S?
         100%

          90%

          80%

          70%

          60%

          50%

          40%

          30%

          20%

          10%

           0% -
                WS34   WS35   WS36  WS 37   WS 38   WS 39

                                        Water Study
                                                       WS 40   WS 41
b. Results of the PQL Analysis
    The current PQL, 0.05 |ig/L, was derived from a multiplier of 5 from the MDL of 0.01 |ig/L
(56 FR 3552). The data used for PQL re-evaluation were taken from WS studies 24 to 41 .  Table
38 summarizes the results of the WS studies, providing the study number, the true concentration
of the spiked sample, the number of laboratories participating, and the percentage of laboratories
passing the WS study (evaluated using acceptance limit of ± 40 percent for EDB as cited in 40
CFR§
   Using the 75 percent criterion, it appears from the numerical data that EPA and regional
laboratories are able to achieve acceptable results within the ± 40 percent acceptance window at
concentrations from 0.14 to 2.3 |ig/L.
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
                                     70
Final - March 2003

-------
Table 38.     Evaluation of Ethylene Dibromide Data from WS Studies Using the ± 40%
              Acceptance Limits (in Order of Increasing Concentration)
ws#
37
33
39
36
38
41
34
26
24
35
31
40
29
25
30
27
32
Spiked "True" Value
(Hg/L)
0.138
0.143
0.227
0.283
0.336
0.344
0.406
0.434
0.480
0.609
0.637
0.638
0.850
0.944
1.39
1.45
2.29
# Results from EPA and
State Labs
42
24
36
51
48
34
45
35
32
30
25
50
25
18
39
17
44
% Labs Passing
Acceptance Limits
81
75
94
94
96
100
87
91
100
90
84
98
84
100
92
88
98
    The percentages of the acceptable results for laboratories were not plotted, as these values all
exceeded the 75 percent criterion and therefore could not contribute meaningful information
toward the re-evaluation of a PQL using the linear regression approach. In addition, none of the
WS studies evaluated had spike concentrations below the current PQL of 0.05 |ig/L. However,
WS studies at concentrations slightly above the PQL (WS 37 and 33) had laboratory passing
rates of 81 and 75 percent, respectively.  This would indicate that the  current PQL is probably
appropriate and unlikely to change.
Conclusion for Ethylene Dibromide
    The method comparison results indicate that the sensitivity of the available methods has not
improved significantly since the promulgation of NPDWRs for EDB. Evaluation of more recent
WS data provides no evidence that would support a change from the current PQL of 0.05 |ig/L.
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
71
Final - March 2003

-------
Fluoride
Results of the Method Comparison
   Fluoride, a Phase II IOC, is unique among SDWA contaminants because it is often added to
drinking water to provide well-known health benefits. Because low concentrations of fluoride
are often added to public water supplies to protect dental health, EPA has not published a
detection limit for this contaminant. Since the Agency's promulgation of the MCL for fluoride
(April 1986, 51 FR 11397), this contaminant has gained several additional approved methods,
mostly developed by voluntary consensus standard organizations.  Currently, the only EPA-
approved method for fluoride determination is EPA Method 300.0, an ion chromatography
method with greater sensitivity than the EPA methods approved at the time of promulgation.
Table 39 summarizes original and current methods, and their individual detection limits.  The
voluntary consensus standard method MDLs are not listed in this table because non-EPA
methods are not required to document detection limits.


Table 39.      Results of the Analytical Methods Comparison for Fluoride (Newly
              Promulgated Methods are Indicated in Bold)
MCL = 4mg/L Current PQL = 0.5 mg/L DL = N/A4 Acceptance Limit* = ± 10%
Methods Approved At Promulgation
Method
EPA 340. 11
EPA 340.21
EPA340.31
D1179-72A2
D1179-72B2
43A; C3
413B3
413E3
3 80-75 WE5
129-7 1W4
Technique
Colorimetric SPADNS, with
Bellack Distillation
Potentiometric, with
ion-selective electrode (ISE)
Automated Alizarin, with
distillation (complexone)
Colorimetric SPADNS, with
distillation
Potentiometric, with ISE
Colorimetric SPADNS, with
distillation
Potentiometric, with ISE
Automated Alizarin,
w/distillation
Automated electrode
Automated Alizarin,
w/distillation
MDL
(mg/L)
0. 1-1.4*
N/A-
0.05-
1.5*
N/A'
WA-
N/A-
N/A'
WA-
N/A'
N/A'
Currently Approved Methods (141.23)
Method
EPA 300.06

D1179-93B2
D4327-917
4500F-B,D8
4500F-C7
4500F-E7
4110B7
380-75WE5
129-7 1W4
Technique
Ion chromatography

Manual electrode
Ion chromatography
Manual distillation;
Colorimetric
SPADNS
Manual electrode
Automated Alizarin
Ion chromatography
Automated
electrode
Automated Alizarin
MDL
(mg/L)
0.01

N/A'
N/A'
N/A'
N/A'
N/A'
N/A'
N/A'
N/A'
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
72
Final - March 2003

-------
  1 "Methods of Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes (MCAWW)," EPA/600/4-79/020, EPA Environmental
  Monitoring Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268. March 1983.

  2 Annual Book oj'ASTM Standards, 1994, Vol. 11.01, American Society for Testing and Materials, 1961 Race
  Street. Philadelphia, PA 19103.
  3 Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 16th edition.  American Public Health
  Association, American Water Works Association, Water Pollution Control Federation, 1985.

  4 "Fluoride in Water and Wastewater, Industrial Method 129-71W," Technicon Industrial Systems, Tarrytown,
  New York 10591. December 1972.
  5 "Fluoride in Water and Wastewater," Technicon Industrial Systems, Tarrytown, New York 10591. February
  1976.

  6 "Methods for the Determination of Inorganic Substances in Environmental Samples," EPA/600/R-94/111,
  August 1993.
  7 Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 19th edition.  American Public Health
  Association, American Water Works Association, Water Pollution Control Federation.

  ' MDLs are not specified for non-EPA (i.e., voluntary consensus standard) methods.
  t Acceptance limits for inorganic compounds are listed at 40 CFR §141.23(k)(3)(ii).
  * Multiple method  detection limit (MDL) values result from variability of reagents, instrumentation and/or
  laboratory/analyst performance.	
    As shown in Table 39, multiple versions of methods exist for some technologies such as ion
chromatography, automated electrode, automated alizarin, and manual electrode.


Results of the Analysis of the WS Data


a.  Method Usage Over Time


    The distribution of the analytical techniques used by the EPA and State laboratories in WS
34 to 41 is  shown in Figure 24. The results for "other" techniques include the use of other
techniques identified by the laboratories participating in the WS study, as well as "unknown"
methods, i.e., methods for which  laboratories did not report any information on the type of
method used.
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review       73                          Final - March 2003

-------
     Figure 24. Distribution of Analytical Techniques by WS Study: Fluoride

                                          Fluoride
/U/o "
60% -
•§ 50% -
£
"3
1) 40% "
C
'in
« 30% -
j
5s 20% -
10% -
no/_ -











J










n


































I

y






ILi










flLf










ill










I










fl

[
















I
• 300.0
• 340.1

0340.2
0340.3
D380-75WE
O Manual Elec.*
• Auto. Alizarin**
D other

               WS34  WS35  WS36  WS 37  WS 38  WS 39  WS 40   WS41

                                     Water Study


* Manual electrode combines the methods D1179-93B (ASTM) and 4500F-C (SM).
** Automated Alizarin combines the methods 4500F-E (SM) and 129-71W (Technicon).
    Fluoride determination has involved the use of a wide variety of analytical methods.  In
earlier years, the most popular method was EPA Method 340.2, an ion selective electrode
method, but its usage dropped significantly after WS 35. Since WS 36, method usage by
laboratories participating in the water supply studies has been dominated by a non-EPA manual
electrode method.  Laboratories have also increasingly favored the use of EPA Method 300.0,
though to a lesser extent relative to the manual electrode methods (D1179-93B, 4500F-C).  A
small fraction  of participating laboratories have employed the voluntary consensus standard
method 380-75WE (automated electrode) throughout WS 34 to 41.
b.  Results of the PQL Analysis
    The current PQL (500 |ig/L or 0.5 mg/L) was originally determined from older PE water
supply study data (WS 8 to 12, see USEPA, "Monitoring for Fluoride in Drinking Water:
Revised," March 1986). The PQL was re-evaluated using a broader range of PE data including
more recent studies (WS 24 to 41). Table 40 summarizes the results of these studies, providing
the study number, the spiked or "true" value for the WS sample, the number of results from EPA
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
74
Final - March 2003

-------
and State laboratories, and the actual responses returned by laboratories. For fluoride, EPA
stipulates acceptance limits of ± 10 percent (§141.23(k)(3)(ii)).
Table 40.     Evaluation of Fluoride Data from WS Studies Using the 10% Acceptance
              Limits (in Order of Increasing Concentration)
ws#
29
34
26a
24b
40
25b
24a
37
32
25a
39
26b
35
27
38
31
41
33
36
30
Spiked "True" Value
(mg/L)
0.33
1.10
1.25
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.72
1.80
2.00
2.50
2.90
3.41
3.80
4.35
4.70
5.70
6.20
6.60
7.20
7.90
# Results from EPA and
State Labs
33
65
63
62
66
40
62
55
67
40
54
64
43
37
65
33
46
35
61
61
% Labs Passing ± 10%
Acceptance Limits
84.8
93.8
93.7
96.8
60.6
87.5
93.5
87.3
92.5
87.5
92.6
89.1
97.7
86.5
98.5
97.0
95.3
94.3
95.1
93.4
    The WS data indicate that EPA and State laboratories performed with high success rates in
WS studies involving fluoride determination. On average, 91 percent of participating
laboratories achieved results within the ±10 percent acceptance window. The range of true
value concentrations contained many spikes above the current PQL (0.5 mg/L), preventing a
thorough analysis of laboratory capabilities at or below the PQL. For WS 29, the only study
where the true value was below the PQL, 85 percent of laboratories successfully passed within
the specified acceptance limits, well above the 75 percent criterion.  Thus, it might be possible
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
75
Final - March 2003

-------
for laboratories to pass the PE studies at even lower concentrations; however, such a conclusion
is uncertain in the absence of additional data below the PQL value.


Conclusion for Fluoride


   The MDL of the only currently approved EPA method, EPA Method 300.0, is much lower
than those of previous EPA methods and use of this method has increased gradually over time.
However, EPA Method 300.0 still accounts for less than a quarter of method usage for fluoride
and thus cannot be representative of overall laboratory analytical capabilities. Based on the
graph of method usage over time (Figure 24), the method most commonly used in recent years is
a manual electrode method, whose detection limit is not specified.  Hence, the combined results
of the method comparison and method usage over time suggest that analytical capabilities have
improved for only a subset of EPA and State laboratories.


   Based on the evaluation of quantitative WS data, the current PQL of 0.5 mg/L is still
supportable and appropriate, although an even lower value might be attainable based on the high
success rates of laboratories in water studies. However, this hypothesis would require further
analysis using WS data at spiked concentrations below 0.5 mg/L, and such data are currently not
available.
Glyphosate


Results of the Method Comparison


   In 1992, the Agency listed EPA 547 as the only approved method for determination of
glyphosate in drinking water, according to the Phase V rule for SOCs (57 FR 31776). Since that
time, EPA has added Standard Method (SM) 6651, a voluntary consensus standard method, to
the approved list.  The MDL of SM 6651  is not specified, but it is reasonable to expect a similar
detection limit compared to EPA Method  547 due to the similarity in determinative technique.
Because the MDL of EPA Method 547 has not changed over time and no additional EPA
methods were approved, the analytical capabilities for determination of glyphosate have
remained constant since the approval of EPA Method 547.
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review      76                        Final - March 2003

-------
Table 41.    Results of the Analytical Methods Comparison for Glyphosate (Newly
             Promulgated Methods are Indicated in Bold)
MCL = 700.0 jig/L Current PQL = 60.0 jig/L DLA = 6.0 jig/L Acceptance Limit* = ± 2*S.D.
Methods Approved At Promulgation
Method
EPA
5471

Technique
HPLC, post-column
derivatization,
fluorescence detection

MDL
5.99-
8.99*

Currently Approved Methods (141.24)
Method
EPA 5471
SM 66512
Technique
HPLC, post-column
derivatization, fluorescence
detection
Liquid chromatography,
post-column fluorescence
MDL
5.99-8.99*
N/A°
1 "Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water—Supplement I," EPA/600/4-90/020,
July 1990.
2 18th edition of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 1992, American Public Health
Association, 1015 Fifteenth Street NW, Washington, DC 20005.
A Regulatory DLs for organic compounds are listed at 40 CFR §141.24(h)(18).
f Acceptance limits for organic compounds are listed at are listed at 40 CFR §141.24(h)(19)(i).
0 MDLs are not specified for non-EPA (i.e., voluntary consensus standard) methods.
Results of the Analysis of the WS Data
a.  Method Usage Over Time
   Figure 25 is a plot of the distribution of analytical techniques used by the EPA and State
laboratories during WS 34 to 41. As shown in Figure 25, the majority of the participating
laboratories utilized EPA Method 547 for the determination of glyphosate. A small fraction of
laboratories employed the voluntary consensus standard method, SM 6651 and a minority of
laboratories used "other" methods or methods that were not specified.
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
11
Final - March 2003

-------
        Figure 25. Distribution of Analytical Techniques by WS Study: Glyphosate

                                           Glyphosate
          •a
          o
          .c
          4-1
          01

          O)
          c
          'in
          1/1
          .a
1 UU"/0
90% -
80% -
70% -
60% -
50% -
40% -
30% -
20% -
10% -
no/.





—








•
-








•
• — |






1
,— I








m







3
—








Tl
-








•













D547
Q 6651
• other



                   WS34   WS35  WS36   WS 37   WS 38   WS 39   WS 40  WS 41

                                            Water Study
b.  Results of the PQL Analysis
    Glyphosate currently has a PQL of 0.06 mg/L (or 60 |ig/L) which was derived from previous
WS results from EPA and State laboratories (WS 24 to 27, 56 FR 60949). In light of the
availability of more recent PE WS data from WS studies 32 to 41, efforts were made to reassess
the PQL.  Table 42 summarizes the data from these water studies, indicating the study number,
the true value of the WS sample, the number of results from laboratories, and the calculated
percentage of laboratories whose results successfully passed within the designated acceptance
limits for glyphosate (± 2*S.D. as specified at 141.24(h)(19)(i).


    Table 42 shows that the laboratories in these water studies were able to achieve results within
the acceptance window with 73 tolOO percent passing rates.  Using the 75 percent criterion for
estimation of the PQL will not be meaningful for this dataset because of the high success rate
and the lack of spike values at concentrations around the current PQL of 60 |ig/L.
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
78
Final - March 2003

-------
Table 42.    Evaluation of Glyphosate Data from WS Studies Using the ± 2* S.D.
             Acceptance Limits (in Order of Increasing Concentration)
ws#
o o
JJ
40
38
34
32
36
41
39
35
37
Spiked "True" Value (ng/L)
308
375
410
438
447
528
560
620
665
780
# Results from EPA and
State Labs
11
30
25
22
15
27
17
22
15
22
% Labs Passing ± 2*S.D.
Acceptance Limits
72.7
96.7
88.0
90.9
86.7
96.3
100
95.5
86.7
77.3
Conclusion for Glyphosate
    Currently, EPA Method 547 is the sole approved EPA method for determination of
glyphosate and its MDL has not changed over time (Table 41).  A voluntary consensus standard
method (SM 6651) with similar determinative technology is also approved for use, but was used
minimally over the duration of the selected studies according to PE records (Figure 25). The
MDL of SM 6651 is not specified but in all likelihood, resembles the MDL of EPA Method 547.
Therefore, the analytical methods capabilities for glyphosate determination have stayed constant
for most laboratories. The available numerical WS data do not support a reassessment of the
PQL based on the 75 percent criterion, because the passing rates of laboratories typically
exceeded this value. In addition, the spike concentration of the WS samples were much higher
than the current PQL.
Heptachlor
Results of the Method Comparison
    The approved methods for the analysis of heptachlor, a Phase II SOC, in drinking water were
listed in the NPDWRs (56 FR 3526). These original methods included gas chromatography with
several extraction and/or detector variations (EPA Methods 505, 508, and 525.1). Since
promulgation of the Phase II rule, EPA has removed one method (EPA Method 525.1) and
approved the use of three new analytical methods (EPA Methods 508.1, 525.2, and 551.1).  EPA
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
79
Final - March 2003

-------
Method 508.1 is nearly seven times more sensitive than it was at the time of NPDWR
promulgation, and represents the most sensitive of the new methods, with a current MDL of
approximately 0.0015 |ig/L.  The MDLs of the newly approved methods, EPA Methods 508.1,
525.2, and 551.1, range from 0.5 to 15 times the MDLs of the most sensitive method at the time
of the NPDWR promulgation.
Table 43.     Results of the Analytical Methods Comparison for Heptachlor (Newly
             Promulgated Methods are Indicated in Bold)
MCL = 0.4 ng/L Current PQL = 0.4 ng/L DLA = 0.04 (ig/L Acceptance Limitf = ± 45%
Methods Approved At Promulgation
Method
EPA 505 '
EPA 5081
EPA 525. 11


Technique
Microextraction and
GC
GC with BCD
LSE and GC/MS


MDL
(ng/L)
0.003
o.or
0.04-
0.2*


Currently Approved Methods (141.24)
Method
EPA 5052
EPA 5082
EPA 508. 12
EPA 52S.22
EPA 551.12
Technique
Microextraction and
GC
GC with BCD
LSE and GC with BCD
LSE and GC/MS
LLE and GC with BCD
MDL
(ng/L)
0.003
0.0015
0.005
0.059-0.15*
0.002-0.081*
1 "Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water," EPA/600/4-88/039, December
1988.
2 "Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water-- Supplement III,"
EPA/600/R-95/131, August 1995.
A Regulatory DLs for organic compounds are listed at 40 CFR §141.24(h)(18).
t Acceptance limits for organic compounds are listed at are listed at 40 CFR §141.24(h)(19)(i).
* Multiple method detection limit (MDL) values result from variability of reagents, instrumentation and/or
laboratory /analyst performance.
" EDL = estimated detection limit, used to approximate the MDL.
Results of the Analysis of the WS Data
a.  Method Usage Over Time
   Figure 26 is a plot of the distribution of analytical techniques used by the EPA and State
laboratories in WS 34 to 41. The "other" techniques represent methods which were not
specifically identified by participating laboratories or were otherwise unknown. As shown in
Figure 26, the majority of laboratories used EPA Method 508 for determination of heptachlor in
WS studies 34 to 41. EPA Method 525.1, which was used in earlier WS studies, was replaced by
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
80
Final - March 2003

-------
EPA Method 525.2 after WS 36.  Other than this shift, there has been little overall change in
method usage over time for this contaminant.
      Figure 26. Distribution of Analytical Techniques by WS Study: Heptachlor

                                        Heptachlor
       O)
       .a
       us
          70%
          60%
          50%
          40%
          30%
          20%
          10%
          0%
                                   0525.2
                                   0525.1
                                   • 508
                                   0505
                                   E508.1
                                   Bother
               WS34   WS35   WS36   WS 37   WS 38   WS 39   WS 40   WS41

                                        Water Study
b.  Results of the PQL Analysis
    The original PQL for heptachlor (0.4 |ig/L) was derived via multiplication of the IMDL by a
factor of 10 (56 FR 3552). With the availability of recent PE WS data, efforts were made to
reassess the PQL using data from WS studies 24 to 41.  Table 44 summarizes the data from these
WS studies, indicating the study number, the true value of the WS sample, the number of results
from EPA and State laboratories, and the calculated percentage of laboratories whose results
successfully passed within federally designated acceptance limits for heptachlor. These
acceptance limits are specified in 40 CFR §141.24(h)(19)(i) to be ± 45 percent from the true
concentration of the spike sample.
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
81
Final - March 2003

-------
    The numerical data in Table 44 demonstrate that the laboratories in these WS studies are able
to achieve results within the ± 45 percent acceptance window with 82 to 100 percent passing
rates. Using the 75 percent criterion for estimation of the PQL, the dataset are not adequate to
re-evaluate the PQL. Further, the majority of the spike samples had concentrations in excess of
the current PQL of 0.4 |ig/L. Nevertheless, the high passing rates of laboratories at
concentrations around the PQL (e.g., 100 percent passing for a true value equal to 0.11 |ig/L)
support a possible reconsideration of the current PQL.
Table 44.     Evaluation of Heptachlor Data from WS Studies Using the 45% Acceptance
              Limits (in Order of Increasing Concentration)
ws#
25b
24a
29
32
37
27
39
36
41
34
38
30
25a
31
33
26
40
35
24b
Spiked "True" Value (ng/L)
0.113
0.263
0.370
0.443
0.563
0.642
0.667
0.751
0.83
0.914
1.20
1.38
1.42
1.44
1.73
2.27
2.33
2.54
3.15
# Results from EPA and
State Labs
18
33
24
44
42
24
36
51
34
45
48
47
19
25
24
31
50
30
33
% Labs Passing
±45% Acceptance Limits
100
94
95.8
94.6
95.6
100
97.6
94.5
93
90.2
94
93.6
100
84.6
90.6
90.3
90.7
90.9
93.9
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
82
Final - March 2003

-------
Conclusion for Heptachlor
    The plot of the method usage over time (from WS studies) indicates consistent use of two
methods, EPA Methods 508 and 505 over the duration of the selected studies, with laboratories
slightly favoring usage of EPA Method 508. EPA Method 508 represents the most sensitive
currently approved method, according to Table 43. The overall level of analytical sensitivity for
this contaminant has improved approximately seven-fold from the time of NPDWR
promulgation. The available numerical WS data do not support a reassessment of the PQL based
on the 75 percent criterion, because the passing rates of laboratories always exceeded this value.
Because such high passing rates were observed for some low spiked concentrations (e.g., 100
percent laboratory success for a concentration three times lower than the current PQL), it is
possible that a lowered PQL might be appropriate.  However, the desired quantitative
reassessment  of the PQL could not be performed using the historical approach.
Heptachlor Epoxide
Results of the Method Comparison
    The approved methods designated in the Phase II rule for heptachlor epoxide (56 FR 3526)
included EPA Methods 505, 508, and 525.1. These methods are variations of GC methods with
different extraction and/or detection techniques as shown in Table 45.  The most sensitive of the
currently approved methods is EPA Method 508.1 (GC with ECD), with an MDL of 0.001 jig/L.
This method was introduced subsequent to the promulgation of the Phase II rule, along with two
additional methods, EPA Methods 525.2 and 551.1.


Table 45.     Results of the Analytical Methods Comparison for Heptachlor Epoxide (New
             Methods Indicated in Bold)
MCL = 0.2[ig/L Current PQL = 0.2 [ig/L DLA = 0.02ng/L Acceptance Limit* = ± 45%
Methods Approved At Promulgation
Method
EPA 505 '
EPA 5081
EPA 525. 11


Technique
Microextraction and GC
GC with ECD
LSE and GC/MS


MDL
(ng/L)
0.004
0.0151
0.2-
0.3*


Currently Approved Methods (141.24)
Method
EPA 5052
EPA 5082
EPA 508. 12
EPA 52S.22
EPA 551.12
Technique
Microextraction and
GC
GC with ECD
LSE and GC with ECD
LSE and GC/MS
LLE and GC with ECD
MDL
(ng/L)
0.004
0.0059
0.001
0.048-0.13*
0.002 -
0.202*
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
83
Final - March 2003

-------
 1 "Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water," EPA/600/4-88/039, December
 1988.

 2 "Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water--Supplement III,"
 EPA/600/R-95/131, August 1995.

 A Regulatory DLs for organic compounds are listed at 40 CFR §141.24(h)(18).

 t Acceptance limits for organic compounds are listed at are listed at 40 CFR 141.24(h)(19)(i).

 * Multiple method detection limit (MDL) values result from variability of reagents, instrumentation and/or
 laboratory/analyst performance.

 ' EDL = estimated detection limit, used to approximate the MDL.	
Results of the Analysis of the WS Data


a.  Method Usage Over Time


    Figure 27 illustrates the distribution of the analytical techniques used by the EPA and State
laboratories in WS 34 to 41. Analytical methods which were not reported by laboratories or
were otherwise unknown were grouped into the category of "other."  As illustrated by Figure 27,
EPA Method 508 represents the most commonly used method for heptachlor epoxide WS
analyses. EPA Methods 505 and  525.2 were used to a lesser degree; together, these methods
account for 40 to 50 percent of the techniques used during the indicated time frame.
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review       84                         Final - March 2003

-------
     Figure 27. Distribution of Analytical Techniques by WS Study: Heptachlor Epoxide

                                   Heptachlor Epoxide
       O)
       _c
       'in
70%


60%


50%


40%


30%
       .a

       S?  20%


          10%


           0%
                                  • 505
                                  Q 525.2
                                  nsos
                                  0508.1
                                  D other
                WS34  WS35   WS36   WS 37  WS 38   WS 39   WS 40  WS41
                                        Water Study
b. Results of the PQL Analysis
    The PQL for heptachlor epoxide is currently 0.2 |ig/L.  EPA obtained this value by
multiplying the estimated IMDL by a factor of 10 (56 FR 3552). The Agency wished to re-
evaluate the PQL using available WS data from WS studies 24 to 41  (although no data were
available for WS 28).  Table 46 summarizes these data, indicating the study number, the true
value of the sample, the number of non-zero responses from laboratories, and the calculated
passing rates of laboratories who satisfied the specified acceptance limits for heptachlor epoxide.
These limits are designated as ± 45 percent (40 CFR §141.24(h)(19)(i)).
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
85
                                                           Final - March 2003

-------
Table 46.     Evaluation of Heptachlor Epoxide Data from WS Studies Using the 45%
              Acceptance Limits (in Order of Increasing Concentration)
ws#
24a
26a
29
39
32
37
27
34
41
33
38
25a
30
25b
40
35
24b
26b
31
Spiked "True" Value (jig/L)
0.161
0.198
0.267
0.340
0.346
0.403
0.533
0.55
0.63
0.679
0.742
0.771
0.85
0.094
1.48
1.49
1.61
1.81
1.92
# Results from EPA and
State Labs
33
31
25
43
55
45
24
51
43
31
51
21
47
20
54
33
33
30
27
% Labs Passing
±45% Acceptance Limits
91
87
92
98
95
93
88
94
95
94
96
100
98
100
94
97
88
97
82
    The values in the last column of Table 46 demonstrate that the laboratories participating in
these WS studies achieved a very high rate of success with respect to the designated acceptance
limits.  While the 75 percent criterion has historically been used to evaluate PQLs, such an
analysis would be impossible for heptachlor epoxide because none of the laboratories exhibited
success rates below this threshold.  Thus, a regression of the WS results was not performed, as
the data did not appear to contribute meaningfully to recalculate the PQL.  In addition, the
concentrations of the spike samples generally exceeded the concentration of interest, the PQL
(0.2 jig/L).
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
86
Final - March 2003

-------
Conclusion for Heptachlor Epoxide


   According to the method comparison results, the introduction of three new analytical
methods since the promulgation of the Phase II rule has not presented any significant
improvements in overall method sensitivity. The most sensitive method (EPA Method 508) at
the time of NPDWR promulgation is no longer the most sensitive method today, due to its MDL
change, as evident in Table 45. Based on the analysis of method usage over time, EPA Method
508 is more widely used than the current most sensitive method, EPA Method 508.1.  In light of
the usage patterns for heptachlor epoxide, analytical method capabilities for the overall
contaminant are probably similar to those of the original methods. Although the WS data did not
provide enough information to perform a regression analysis, the passing rates at concentrations
around the current PQL of 0.2 |ig/L suggest that the PQL could be lower.
Hexachlorobenzene


Results of the Method Comparison


   Hexachlorobenzene, a Phase V SOC, had three approved methods for drinking water analysis
at the time NPDWRs were promulgated (57 FR 31776). All three original methods consisted of
GC with extraction and/or detector variations (EPA Method 505, microextraction; 508, ECD;
and 525.1, LSE). Since the Phase V rule was promulgated, the Agency has retained two of the
old methods, removed EPA Method 525.1, and approved three additional analytical methods,
EPA Methods 508.1, 525.2, and 551.1 (LSE, ECD; LSE; and LLE, ECD, respectively).  As
shown in Table 47, the most sensitive method of both the old and new categories is EPA Method
508.1, with an MDL of 0.001 jig/L.
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review      87                       Final - March 2003

-------
Table 47.     Results of the Analytical Methods Comparison for Hexachlorobenzene
             (Newly Promulgated Methods are Indicated in Bold)
MCL = 1 (ig/L Current PQL = 1 jig/L DI/ = 0.1 jig/L Acceptance Limitf = ± 2 x S.D.
Methods Approved At Promulgation
Method
EPA 505 '
EPA 5081
EPA 525. 11


Technique
Microextraction and GC
GC with BCD
LSE and GC/MS


MDL
(ng/L)
0.002
0.00771
0.1-
0.2*


Currently Approved Methods (141.24)
Method
EPA 5052
EPA 5082
EPA 508. 12
EPA 52S.22
EPA 551.12
Technique
Microextraction and
GC
GC with BCD
LSE and GC with BCD
LSE and GC/MS
LLE and GC with BCD
MDL
(ng/L)
0.002
0.0077
0.001
0.049-0.13*
0.001 -
0.003*
1 "Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water," EPA/600/4-88/039, December
1988.
2 "Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water-- Supplement III,"
EPA/600/R-95-131, August 1995.
* Regulatory DLs for organic compounds are listed at 40 CFR §141.24(h)(18).
f Acceptance limits are listed at 40 CFR §141.24(h)(19)(i). S.D. = standard deviation.
* Multiple method detection limit (MDL) values result from variability of reagents, instrumentation and/or
laboratory /analyst performance.
" EDL = estimated detection limit, used to approximate the MDL.
Results of the Analysis of the WS Data
a.  Method Usage Over Time
    The distribution of the analytical techniques used by EPA and State laboratories in PE WS
studies 34 to 41 is illustrated by Figure 28.  Methods designated as "other" include methods for
which laboratories did not specify the method used or were otherwise unknown.  As shown by
Figure 28, laboratories responding to these PE WS studies mainly determined
hexachlorobenzene using EPA Method 508, with the exception of one study (WS 39) where use
of EPA Method 525.2 was more prevalent.  Use of EPA Method 525.2 began to appear in WS 36
and has increased slightly in recent years. The analytical methods used most recently (i.e., WS
41) for determination of hexachlorobenzene are divided between the several available current
methods. Use of EPA Method 508.1 was quite small relative to the other methods used.
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
88
Final - March 2003

-------
     Figure 28. Distribution of Analytical Techniques by WS Study: Hexachlorobenzene

                                   Hexachlorobenzene
          60%
       S
       5
       D)
       .£  30%
       in
        in
       .a
           0%
                                       D505
                                       0525.1
                                       D508
                                       IE 525.2
                                       Q 508.1
                                       • other
WS34   WS35  WS36
WS 37   WS 38
 Water Study
                                                      WS 39   WS 40   WS41
b.  Results of the PQL analysis
    The original PQL of hexachlorobenzene (1 j-ig/L, 56 FR 3552) was determined using PE data
from WS 27. The data used for the re-evaluation of the PQL were taken from WS 27 through
41. The results of these WS studies are summarized in Table 48, which provides the study
number, the spiked value for the WS sample, the number of results from EPA and State
laboratories, and the results evaluated using acceptance limits of ± 2 x S.D (as specified at
    It appears from the numerical data that EPA Regional and State laboratories are able to
achieve successful results within the ± 2 x S.D. acceptance limits at rates well above the 75
percent criterion typically used for determining a PQL. Thus, a regression analysis using the
available PE data was not attempted due to the nature of these data. On average, the success
rates of the WS laboratories were about 92 percent over spike concentrations ranging from 0.4 to
3.6 i-ig/L.  The high passing rates at concentrations around the PQL of 1 |ig/L suggest that the
PQL could be lower.
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
    89
                                                     Final - March 2003

-------
Table 48.    Evaluation of Hexachlorobenzene Data from WS Studies Using the 2 x S.D.
             Acceptance Limits (in Order of Increasing Concentration)
ws#
29
27
38
35
30
37
36
32
41
33
39
31
40
34
Spiked "True" Value (ng/L)
0.417
0.483
0.538
0.635
0.667
0.806
0.847
0.857
1.03
1.32
1.68
2.4
2.9
3.57
# Results from EPA and
State Labs
18
15
45
31
38
42
50
44
38
29
37
23
48
46
% Labs Passing ± 2 x S.D.
Acceptance Limits
83
100
93
90
95
95
88
89
97
93
97
87
92
89
Conclusion for Hexachlorobenzene
    Together, the results from the method comparison and the method usage over time show that
the one of the most sensitive methods, EPA Method 508, has been consistently used since the
promulgation of the NPDWRs and is one of the more frequently used methods for determination
of hexachlorobenzene. Thus, the MDL for the overall contaminant appears to be unchanged
since the original methods were promulgated.  Other less sensitive methods that are also
currently in use include EPA Methods 505 and 525.2.  Examination of the quantitative PE WS
data reveal that the percentage of laboratories successfully passing the proficiency exams is too
high to provide insight toward a re-evaluated PQL. However, the high laboratory passing rates
at concentrations around the current PQL are suggestive of a change in the PQL.
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
90
Final - March 2003

-------
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Results of the Method Comparison
   With the promulgation of the NPDWRs for Phase V SOCs, the approved methodology for
determination of hexachlorocyclopentadiene included two EPA gas chromatography methods,
EPA Methods 505 and 525.1. Since that time, EPA Method 525.1 was discontinued and four
new methods were added (EPA Methods 525.2, 508.1, 551.1, and 508). As indicated in Table
49, the MDLs for the newer methods (EPA Methods 508.1 and 551.1) are lower than the MDLs
of both original methods, while the MDLs of EPA Methods 505 and 525.2 are comparable to the
MDL of the original EPA Method 505.
Table 49.     Results of the Analytical Methods Comparison for
             Hexachlorocyclopentadiene (Newly Promulgated Methods are Indicated in
             Bold)
MCL = 50 jig/L Current PQL = 1 jig/L DLA = 0.1 jig/L Acceptance Limit* = ± 2*S.D.
Methods Approved At Promulgation
Method
EPA 505 '
EPA 525. 11



Technique
Microextraction and
GC
LSE and GC/MS



MDL
(Hg/L)
0.13
0.03-
0.1*



Currently Approved Methods (141.24)
Method
EPA 5052
EPA 52S.22
EPA 5082
EPA 508. 12
EPA 551. 12
Technique
Microextraction and GC
LSE and GC/MS
GC with BCD
LSE and GC with BCD
LLE and GC with BCD
MDL
(Hg/L)
0.13
0.072 -
0.16*
N/A
0.004
0.018
1 "Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water," EPA/600/4-88/039, December
1988.
2 "Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water-- Supplement III,"
EPA/600/R-95/131, August 1995.
A Regulatory DLs for organic compounds are listed at 40 CFR §141.24(h)(18).
t Acceptance limits for organic compounds are listed at 40 CFR §141.24(h)(19)(i).
* Multiple method detection limit (MDL) values result from variability of reagents, instrumentation and/or
laboratory /analyst performance.
*MDLs are not specified for non-EPA (i.e., voluntary consensus standard) methods.
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
91
Final - March 2003

-------
Results of the Analysis of the WS Data
a.  Method Usage Over Time
   Figure 29 illustrates the distribution of the analytical techniques used by EPA and State
laboratories in WS studies 34 to 41. The results for "other" techniques in this figure include the
use of any other technique identified by the laboratories participating in the WS study, as well as
methods for which laboratories did not report any information on the type of method used. The
distribution of methods used by EPA and State laboratories has been fairly well-mixed. During
WS 34 and 35, EPA Method 505 was the predominant choice for determination of
hexachlorocyclopentadiene. From WS 36 to 41, however, use of EPA Methods 508 and 525.2
began to eclipse that of EPA Method 505. The remaining methods were used minimally
throughout WS 34 to 41.
     Figure 29. Distribution of Analytical Techniques by WS Study:
     Hexachlorocyclopentadiene

                                 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
       o
       ^
       5
       D)
       •5J
100%

 90% -

 80% -

 70% -

 60% -

 50% -

 40% -

 30% -

 20% -

 10% -

  0%
                                                         1
                                   0505
                                   • 508
                                   0508.1
                                   • 525.1
                                   • 525.2
                                   d other
                 WS34   WS35   WS36  WS 37   WS 38   WS 39

                                         Water Study
                    WS 40  WS 41
b. Results of the PQL Analysis
    The current PQL of 1.0 |ig/L was originally set from PE data from WS 23 through 27 (57 FR
31801). The PQL re-evaluation used data from WS 24 to 41. Table 50 summarizes the results of
these studies, providing the study number, the spiked value for the WS sample, the number of
results from EPA Regional and State laboratories, and the passing rates of these laboratories
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
92
                                                          Final - March 2003

-------
when evaluated using an acceptance limit of ± twice the standard deviation (as specified at
Table 50.     Evaluation of Hexachlorocyclopentadiene Data from WS Studies Using the ±
              2* S.D. Acceptance Limits (in Order of Increasing Concentration)
ws#
25b
29
26b
24b
27
32
31
40
38
30
35
25a
41
34
26a
37
o o
JJ
39
24a
36
Spiked "True" Value (ng/L)
0.267
0.313
0.367
0.736
0.774
0.823
1.11
1.22
1.47
1.72
1.84
1.87
1.93
2.14
2.47
2.49
2.92
3.26
4.42
4.71
# Results from EPA and
State Labs
11
14
21
21
14
41
16
47
44
35
27
12
35
43
21
40
26
35
21
47
% Labs Passing ± 2* S.D.
Acceptance Limits
54.5
92.9
95.2
95.2
100
87.8
93.8
93.6
93.2
100
92.6
83.3
97.1
95.3
81.0
95.0
96.2
94.3
90.5
93.6
    As shown in Table 50, laboratories exhibited passing rates over 75 percent in all WS studies
with the exception of one (WS 25b). Because the passing rates for laboratories determining
hexachloropentadiene were well above 75 percent, a re-evaluation of the PQL was not feasible.
However, the demonstrated success of laboratories at concentrations well below the existing
PQL of 1 |ig/L (e.g., WS 27, 29 and 32) suggests that a lower PQL may be possible.
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
93
Final - March 2003

-------
Conclusion for Hexachlorocyclopentadiene


    The method comparison results indicate that method sensitivities have either remained
similar or improved slightly (e.g., for EPA Methods 508.1 and 551.1).  A review of method
usage over time shows that EPA Methods 505, 525.2, and 508 were the most commonly used
methods in recent WS studies. Because the more sensitive methods were not used with great
frequency, it would appear that method capabilities for hexachlorocyclopentadiene have
remained more or less unchanged over time. Although it was not possible to recalculate the
PQL, high laboratory passing rates at concentrations below the current PQL suggest that a lower
PQL may be feasible.


Mercury


Results of the Method Comparison


    The analytical methods approved for the determination of mercury under the NPDWRs for
Phase II lOCs include EPA Methods 245.1 and 245.2 (56 FR 3526). Since the time of
promulgation, EPA Method 200.8 has been approved. The currently approved methods for
mercury determination include EPA Methods 200.8, 245.1, and 245.2.  Table 51 summarizes the
MDLs for both the original and current approved versions of the methods.  As shown in Table
51, the MDLs for current methods are equal  in sensitivity to past methods.
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review      94                       Final - March 2003

-------
Table 51.      Results of the Analytical Methods Comparison for Mercury (Newly
               Promulgated  Methods Indicated in Bold)
Methods Approved At Promulgation
Method
EPA 245. 11
EPA 245.21

D3223-804
SM 303F3
Technique
Manual, Cold Vapor
Automated, Cold Vapor

Manual, Cold Vapor
Manual, Cold Vapor
MDL
(ng/L)
0.2"
0.2"

N/A*
N/A*
Currently Approved Methods
Method
EPA 245. 11
EPA 245.21
EPA 200.82
D3223-915
SM3112B6
Technique
Manual, Cold Vapor
Automated, Cold Vapor
ICP/MS
Manual, Cold Vapor
Manual, Cold Vapor
MDL
(ng/L)
0.2"
0.2"
0.2
N/A*
N/A*
= 2(ig/L   Current PQL = 0.5
                                             i = 0.2(ig/L   Acceptance LimitT = ± 30%
  1 "Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes," EPA/600/4-79/020, March 1983.
  2 "Methods for the Determination of Metals in Environmental Samples-Supplement I," EPA/600/R-94/111, May
  1994.
  3 16th edition of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 1985. American Public Health
  Association, American Water Works Association, Pollution Control Federation.
  4 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 11.01, American Society for Testing and Materials, 1961 Race Street,
  Philadelphia, PA 19103.
  5 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 1994 and 1996, Vols. 11.01  and 11.02, American Society for Testing and
  Materials.
  6 18th and 19th editions of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 1992 and 1995,
  American Public Health Association.
  ' Regulatory DLs for inorganic compounds are listed at 40 CFR §141.23(a)(4)(i) and depend on analytical
  method.
  t Acceptance limits are listed at 40  CFR §141.23(k)(3)(ii) for inorganic compounds.
  " This value is the lower limit of the analytical range and was not determined using the MDL procedure.	
Results of the Analysis of the WS Data
a.  Method Usage Over Time
    Figure 30 shows the distribution of analytical techniques used by EPA and State laboratories
for WS studies 34 to 41. The results for "other" techniques in this figure include the use of any
other technique identified by the laboratories participating in the WS study, as well as
"unknown" methods, (i.e., methods for which laboratories did not report any information on the
type of method used).
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
                                        95
Final - March 2003

-------
    As shown in Figure 30, EPA Method 245.1 (automated cold vapor) was the most widely used
method in WS 34 and 35. From WS 36 to WS 41, EPA Methods 245.1 (manual cold vapor) and
245.2 were most commonly used.
     Figure 30. Distribution of Analytical Techniques by WS Study: Mercury

                                          M ercury
         100%
                V\S34    V\S35    V\S36
V\S37    V\S38
 Vteter Study
V\S39    V\S4Q    V\S41
b. Results of the PQL Analysis
    The current PQL of 0.5 |ig/L was originally set using previous PE data (56 FR 3549). With
the availability of more current data from WS 24 to 41, a PQL re-evaluation was attempted.
Table 52 summarizes the results of these water studies, providing the study number, the spiked
value for the WS sample, the number of results from EPA and State laboratories, and the
mercury results evaluated using an acceptance limit of ± 30 percent, as designated in 40 CFR §
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
   96
            Final - March 2003

-------
Table 52.     Evaluation of Mercury Data from WS Studies Using the 30% Acceptance
              Limits (in Order of Increasing Concentration)
ws#
29
25a
35
31
27
40
33
24b
26b
36
30
39
25b
26a
34
24a
41
32
38
37
Spiked "True" Value (ng/L)
0.506
0.720
0.897
0.908
1.29
1.50
1.77
2.16
2.47
3.00
3.46
3.80
4.32
4.56
5.09
5.76
5.82
6.23
6.39
8.16
# Results from EPA and
State Labs
31
37
37
31
33
60
34
59
61
61
62
47
37
61
61
59
44
64
60
47
% Labs Passing ± 30%
Acceptance Limits
87.1
70.3
94.6
87.1
97.0
93.3
94.1
94.9
93.4
95.1
100.0
83.0
91.9
96.7
100.0
96.9
100.0
96.9
95.0
91.5
    The data from the available WS studies were not conducive to recalculation of the PQL
because the percentage of labs passing (with the exception of one study) generally exceeded the
standard 75 percent passing criterion needed to evaluate the PQL using the either a linear
regression or graphical approach. In addition, the majority of the true values were above the
original PQL of 0.5 |ig/L. However, at values slightly above the current PQL (e.g., WS 29 and
25a) the passing rates of 87 and 70 percent would indicate that the current PQL is most likely in
the appropriate range.
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
97
Final - March 2003

-------
Conclusion for Mercury


    Since the promulgation of the NPDWR for mercury, EPA Method 200.8 has been added to
the original two analytical methods approved for the measurement of mercury in drinking water
(EPA Methods 245.1 and 245.2). According to the distribution of analytical methods usage over
time, EPA Method 245.1 was more widely used than EPA Method 245.2 during WS 34 to 35.
From WS  36 to 41, these two methods were utilized with approximately the same frequency.
Upon review of the WS data, a high percentage of laboratories successfully passing the WS
studies prevented a recalculation of the PQL at the 75 percent passing rate. Thus, the available
PE data provided little evidence for a lower PQL using this approach. Observation of laboratory
passing rates at concentrations slightly above the current PQL of 0.5 |ig/L suggests that this PQL
is still in all likelihood appropriate.
Methoxychlor


Results of the Method Comparison


   At the promulgation of the NPDWRs for methoxychlor, three methods were approved for the
determination of this compound: EPA Methods 505, 508, and 525.1 (56 FR 3552).  Since that
time, use of EPA Method 525.1  has been discontinued and additional methods have been
approved, including EPA Methods 508.1, 525.2, and 551.1. All approved methods utilize GC in
various forms. As shown in Table 53, the MDL of EPA Method 505 has remained unchanged
over time, whereas the MDL of EPA Method 508 has improved in sensitivity. The MDLs of the
newer methods (in bold) range from 0.003 to 0.13 |ig/L. The most sensitive method currently
available (EPA Method 508.1) has about 125 times the sensitivity of the original EPA Method
505.
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review      98                       Final - March 2003

-------
Table 53.     Results of the Analytical Methods Comparison for Methoxychlor (Newly
             Promulgated Methods in Bold)
MCL = 40ng/L Current PQL = 10 jig/L DLA = 0.1(ig/L Acceptance Limit* = ± 45%
Methods Approved At Promulgation
Method
EPA 505 '
EPA 5081
EPA
525. 11


Technique
Microextraction and
GC
GC with BCD
LSE and GC/MS


MDL
(ng/L)
0.96
0.05
0.04-0.3*


Currently Approved Methods (141.24)
Method
EPA 5052
EPA 508 2
EPA 508.12
EPA 525.2 2
EPA 551.12
Technique
Microextraction and
GC
GC with BCD
LSE and GC with BCD
LSE and GC/MS
LLE and GC with BCD
MDL
(ng/L)
0.96
0.022
0.003
0.033-0.13*
0.008 -
0.023*
1 "Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water," EPA/600/4-88/039, December
1988.
2 "Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water-- Supplement III," EPA/600/R-
95/131, August 1995.
' Regulatory DLs for organic compounds are listed at 40 CFR § 141.24(h)(18).
t Acceptance limits for organic compounds are listed at 40 CFR § 141.24(h)(19)(i).
* Multiple method detection limit (MDL) values result from variability of reagents, instrumentation and/or
laboratory /analyst performance.
Results of the Analysis of the WS Data
a.  Method Usage Over Time
   The distribution of methods used by EPA and State laboratories participating in WS 34 to 41
is depicted in Figure 31. The category of "other" includes any unidentified techniques used by
participating laboratories.  As Figure 31 shows, EPA Method 508 was used most widely by
participating laboratories during WS 34 to 41. As EPA Method 525.1 was phased out in WS 36,
use of newer methods, EPA Methods 525.2 and 508.1, began.  EPA Method 505 and other
unidentified methods were used intermittently throughout WS 34 to 41.
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
99
Final - March 2003

-------
    Figure 31. Distribution of Analytical Techniques by WS Study: Methoxychlor

                                     Methoxychlor
   100% -

    90% -

    80% -

o   70% -

5   60% -
D)
•5J   50% -

.a   40% -
us
&   30% -

    20% -

    10% -
          o%
                   1
                      Itt
                                                                           • 505
                                                                           0508
                                                                           0508.1
                                                                           0525.1
                                                                           0525.2
                                                                           • other
               WS34   WS35   WS36   WS 37   WS 38   WS 39   WS 40  WS41

                                       Water Study
b. Results of the PQL Analysis
   The PQL for methoxychlor was originally proposed at 0.001 mg/L, but was finalized in 1991
at 0.01 mg/L (or 10 |ig/L). The method for deriving this value was multiplication of the
detection limit by a factor often (56 FR 3551). Recently, with the availability of more recent
laboratory performance data from WS 24 to 41, a reassessment of the existing PQL was
conducted. Table 54 summarizes each WS result including the spiked (or "true") concentration
in the test sample, the number of participating laboratories, and the calculated percentage of
laboratories successfully passing within the specified ± 45 percent acceptance limit for
methoxychlor (141.24(h)(19)(i)).
Table 54.     Evaluation of Methoxychlor Data from WS Studies Using the 45%
             Acceptance Limits (in Order of Increasing Concentration)
ws#
26b
25a
29
Spiked "True" Value (jig/L)
2.18
3.17
5.21
# Results from EPA and
State Labs
59
37
33
% Labs Passing ± 45%
Acceptance Limits
98.3
94.6
97.0
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
100
                                                             Final - March 2003

-------
ws#
24b
31
34
27
32
37
41
36
30
38
o o
JJ
40
25b
39
35
24a
26a
Spiked "True" Value (ng/L)
5.37
12.9
14.2
16.6
17.4
18.5
26.8
28.9
34.2
34.8
42.3
42.8
48.8
53.8
62.6
73.2
92.8
# Results from EPA and
State Labs
61
32
52
39
59
45
43
56
54
51
35
54
37
43
30
62
59
% Labs Passing ± 45%
Acceptance Limits
93.4
81.3
92.3
89.7
88.1
93.3
90.7
92.9
88.9
88.2
97.1
96.3
94.6
93.0
96.7
91.9
93.2
    Table 54 reveals that the percentage of passing laboratories was well above the 75 percent
criterion, and thus, the PQL could not be re-evaluated using the regression technique. Table 53
also shows that even at very low concentrations (e.g., one-fifth of the existing PQL), a large
percentage of EPA and State laboratories was able to pass the WS study, suggesting that a lower
PQL may be feasible.


Conclusion for Methoxychlor


    EPA Methods 505, 508, and 525.1 were originally approved for the determination of
methoxychlor with the promulgation of the NPDWRs for Phase II SOCs in 1991.  Since then,
EPA Method 525.1 has been removed while EPA Methods 508.1, 525.2, and 551.1 have been
added to the approved list. A review of the method usage over time shows that laboratories
participating in WS 34 to 41 utilized EPA Method 508 more frequently than all other approved
methods, although this margin of difference began to decrease in more recent WS studies.  A
revised PQL for methoxychlor could not be determined due to the large percentage of
laboratories surpassing the 75 percent criterion. However, the data do reveal a possible basis for
lowering the PQL based on the high success rates of laboratories at concentrations well below
the current PQL.
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
101
Final - March 2003

-------
Oxamyl
Results of the Method Comparison
   Oxamyl is one of several SOCs first regulated under the Phase V Rule (57 FR 31776).
Under this rule, EPA Method 531.1 (a HPLC method) was approved for determination of
oxamyl. More recently, the Agency has approved an additional analytical method, Standard
Method (SM) 6610 (HPLC followed by post-column reaction and fluorescence detection), while
retaining the use of EPA Method 531.1. The MDL for SM 6610 is not specified, as methods
published by organizations outside the Agency are not required to calculate an MDL. The MDL
for EPA Method 531.1 has not changed since the 1988 Phase V Rule promulgation, signifying
no change in analytical sensitivity for this contaminant.
Table 55.     Results of the Analytical Methods Comparison for Oxamyl (Newly
             Promulgated Methods in Bold)
MCL = 200p,g/L Current PQL = 20 p,g/L DLi = 2ng/L Acceptance Limit* = ± 2*S.D.
Methods Approved At Promulgation
Method
EPA 531. 11

Technique
HPLC

MDL
2.0 '

Currently Approved Methods
Method
EPA 531. 12
SM 66103
Technique
HPLC
HPLC-post column reaction/
fluorescence detection
MDL
0.86
N/A*
1 "Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water," EPA/600/4-88/039, December
1988.
2 "Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water-- Supplement III,"
EPA/600/R-95/131, August 1995.

3 Standard Method 66 10. Supplement to the 18th edition of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater, 1994, American Public Health Association, 1015 Fifteenth Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20005.
* Regulatory DLs for inorganic compounds are listed at 40 CFR §141.24(h)(18).
t Acceptance limits are listed at 40 CFR §141.24(h)(19)(i).
* MDLs are not specified for non-EPA (i.e., voluntary consensus standard) methods.
" EDL = estimated detection limit, used to approximate the MDL.




Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
102
Final - March 2003

-------
Results of the Analysis of the WS Data
a.  Method Usage Over Time
    The distribution of the methods used by EPA Regional and State laboratories in WS studies
34 to 41 is shown in Figure 32. The results for "other" techniques in this figure include methods
for which laboratories did not report any information on the type of method used or reported
codes that could not be identified. As shown in Figure 32, EPA Method 531.1 was the most
widely used analytical method for determination of oxamyl during WS 34 to 41. By contrast, the
more recently approved SM 6610 was only used minimally during WS 40.
     Figure 32.  Distribution of Analytical Techniques by WS Study: Oxamyl

                                         Oxamyl
1 UU /o
90% -
80% -
o 70% -
.c
2 60% -
O>
•5J 50% -
JS 40% -
SS 30% -
20% -
10% -
no/ -


















"










n
—










n
-










R




















































0531.1
• 6610
Q other



                WS34   WS35   WS36   WS 37   WS 38  WS 39   WS 40  WS 41

                                         Water Study
b. Results of the PQL Analysis
    The current PQL of 20 |ig/L was originally determined using a ten times MDL multiplier (56
FR 30370). In re-evaluating the PQL, a broader range of PE data from WS 24 to 41 were
analyzed. Table 56 summarizes the results of these water studies, providing the study number,
the spiked (or "true") value for the WS sample, the number of results from EPA and State
laboratories, and the percentage of laboratories that successfully passed the test using an
acceptance limit of + 2*S.D. (specified at 141.24(h)(19)(i)).
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
103
Final - March 2003

-------
Table 56.     Evaluation of Oxamyl Data from WS Studies Using the ± 2* S.D. Acceptance
              Limits (in Order of Increasing Concentration)
ws#
29
31
30
27
24a
32
25a
34
26a
33
24b
41
36
40
37
26b
35
25b
38
39
Spiked "True" Value (ng/L)
4.60
5.72
6.47
12.4
12.5
12.8
17.6
22.5
22.6
26.2
31.3
33.8
34.1
42.7
46.4
46.4
47.2
53.5
58.8
78.7
# Results from EPA
Regional and State Labs
10
14
25
8
8
36
5
43
13
13
8
29
47
42
36
13
30
5
42
32
% Labs Passing ± 2* S.D.
Acceptance Limits
10.0
0.00
24.0
25.0
75.0
50.0
60.0
76.7
76.9
46.2
87.5
86.2
80.9
95.2
83.3
76.9
83.3
80.0
90.5
90.6
    The WS data for the EPA Regional and State laboratories shown in Table 56 were also used
to develop a linear regression.  The spiked value concentration is the independent variable (x)
and the percentage of laboratories achieving acceptable results (within the acceptance window)
is the dependent variable (y). For the equation^ = mx + b, m stands for the slope of the
regression line (change in the percentage of laboratories passing as spiked concentration
increases) and b stands for the y-intercept.


    The use of regression techniques assumes that the data from the various WS studies form a
single continuous data set. In reality, the study results do not form a continuous data set, but
represent results from samples  spiked at specific discrete concentrations of oxamyl and analyzed
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
104
Final - March 2003

-------
a few at a time over an extended period. However, through the use of a linear regression, the
data can be used to create a model (the regression line) that may be useful in predicting accuracy
and precision as a function of the concentration of the samples. The regression determines the
linear relationship that best fits the observed results, in effect smoothing the curve and ensuring
that there is a unique concentration that corresponds to any percentage of acceptable
laboratories.


   Calculating the regression equations also provides the correlation coefficient (r) for the
regression, which is a measure of the degree to which the actual data fit the linear model
represented by the regression line. An r value of one would indicate a perfect fit with a positive
slope of the data to the model. A value, p, can also be calculated for the regression that indicates
the probability of concluding the null hypothesis (in this case that the  spiked value concentration
is linearly correlated with the percentage of labs achieving acceptable results) is false, when in
fact the null hypothesis is true, for the given data set. In statistical terms, p indicates the
probability of a Type I error.  The results for the regression equation are summarized in Table
57.
Table 57. Regression Results for Oxamyl
Regression Term
m
b
r
P
±2*S.D. Acceptance Limits
0.0125
0.223
0.819
0.005
    The r value of 0.82 indicates that the data fit the linear model fairly well. The p value of
0.005 indicates that the spiked value and the percentage acceptable are linearly correlated with
more than 99 percent confidence. Figure 33 shows the graphical results of the regression.  The
observed data were plotted against the WS spiked value concentration and the results predicted
from the linear regression line were superimposed. The observed success rate for the EPA and
State laboratories is noticeably lower than the predicted success rate in the region below 20
l-ig/L. While attempts might be made to model the observed results using a second order (non-
linear) regression, the Agency does not believe that there is a scientifically valid reason to do so.
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
105
Final - March 2003

-------
    The oxamyl PE data illustrate the expected outcome from PE testing: a lower percentage of
labs passing at the lowest true values, with an increasing percentage of labs passing as true
values increase, due to increasing lab analytical capabilities at higher concentrations.  As true
values increase further, the percentage of labs passing approaches a stable plateau beyond which
lab analytical capabilities do not improve. This results in a two-part distribution: the lower true
values (<30 |ig/L) are characterized by a line of steeper slope, while higher true values (>30
l-ig/L), are characterized by a line that is nearly flat (see Figure 34). Using this graph to visually
estimate a re-evaluated PQL, the original choice of 20 |ig/L appears to be appropriate.  Figure 34
also shows that the percentage of laboratories achieving acceptable results reaches 75 percent at
a concentration of 39.5 |ig/L which, by the graphical method, indicates the value  of the re-
evaluated PQL (RPQL).  This concentration is higher than the existing PQL of 20 |ig/L.
        Figure 33. Two-part Distribution of Oxamyl WS Data

                                            Oxamyl
         in
         s.
         in
         .a
         ra
90% -
80% -
70% -
60% -
50% -
40% -
30% -
20% -
10% -
no/, _




M
/
*/
/

* _- — -•*
75%
/
' .



current PQL = 20

                        10      20      30      40      50
                                        True Value (ug/L)
                  60
70      80
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
106
 Final - March 2003

-------
       Figure 34. PQL Evaluation of PE WS Data: Oxamyl

                                         Oxamyl
          100%
                      10
20     30      40      50
         True Value (ug/L)
60     70      80
Conclusion for Oxatnyl
   Although a new method for the determination of oxamyl was introduced (SM 6610), this
method was rarely used, as seen in the graph of method usage over time (Figure 32). Analytical
method capabilities have increased in sensitivity for EPA Method 531.1 overtime. Based on the
PQL reassessment, it is apparent that laboratory success follows a linear relationship with true
value concentration to a point, after which the success rate plateaus. Using the standard linear
regression approach, the new RPQL was determined to be 39.5 |ig/L, which may  be linked to
higher spiked concentrations exhibited in more recent PE WS data.  However, if the data are not
plotted on a single line but rather in the two-part manner of Figure 34, the RPQL  would most
likely resemble the existing value of 20 |ig/L.  It is likely that the PQL may lie somewhere
between 20 and 40 |ig/L.
PCBs
Results of the Method Comparison
   For the NPDWRs, all polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were collectively grouped and
identified by the particular aroclor decachlorobiphenyl (DCBP). In 1991, EPA approved EPA
Method 508 A for determination of DCBP, a Phase II SOC (56 FR 3526), in drinking water.  This
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
             107
          Final - March 2003

-------
analytical method utilizes gas chromatography with perchlorination. Since promulgation of the
Phase II rule, EPA has not changed the status of EPA Method 508A and its MDL remains at 0.08
Hg/L (Table 58).
Table 58.     Results of the Analytical Methods Comparison for PCBs
MCL = 0.5ng/L Current PQL = 0.5 jig/L DLA = 0.1[ig/L Acceptance Limitf = ± 100%
Methods Approved At Promulgation
Method
EPA 508A1
Technique
Perchlorination with
GC
MDL*
(ng/L)
0.08 - 0.23
Currently Approved Methods
Method
EPA 508A1
Technique
Perchlorination with GC
MDL*
(ng/L)
0.08-0.23
1 "Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water," EPA/600/4-88/039, December
1988.
A Regulatory DLs for organic compounds are listed at 40 CFR §141.24(h)(18).
f Acceptance limits for organic compounds are listed at are listed at 40 CFR §141.24(h)(19)(i).
* Multiple MDL values result from variability of reagents, instrumentation and/or laboratory performance.
Results of the Analysis of the WS Data
a.  Method Usage Over Time


   Because only one method, EPA Method 508A, was approved for determination of PCBs (as
DCBP) over the duration of WS 34 to 41, its usage was not plotted.


b.  Results of the PQL Analysis
   The original PQL for PCBs was proposed at five times the MDL of 0.08 |ig/L. For the final
rule, EPA compared this value with multilaboratory performance data from WS studies 22 to 24,
and found the PE data to support the proposed value, 0.5 |ig/L (56 FR 3552).  For the six-year
regulatory review, new efforts have been made to reassess the PQL using more recent PE WS
data from WS 31 to 41 .  These data are summarized in Table 59, which indicates  the study
number, the true value of the WS sample, the number of results returned by EPA  and State
laboratories, and the calculated percentage of laboratories whose results successfully passed
within designated acceptance limits for PCBs (±100 percent, as specified at 40 CFR
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
108
Final - March 2003

-------
Table 59.     Evaluation of PCBs Data from WS Studies Using the ± 100% Acceptance
              Limits (in Order of Increasing Concentration)
ws#
31
37
35
39
38
33
32
34
36
40
41
Spiked "True" Value
(Hg/L)
0.445
0.527
0.596
0.667
0.733
0.807
0.959
1.08
1.13
1.23
1.80
# Results from EPA and
State Labs
13
27
15
26
27
14
22
26
30
27
21
% Labs Passing ± 100%
Acceptance Limits
69.2
92.6
80.0
96.2
92.6
92.9
95.5
96.2
93.3
100
100
    A PQL is historically derived from a concentration at which 75 percent of the participating
laboratories pass, or report concentrations that fall within the specified acceptance limits.
However, the data in Table 59 indicate that laboratories exceeded the required 75 percent
criterion in almost all studies (with the exception of WS 31). Because of the high laboratory
passing rates and a lack of sufficient spike concentrations below 0.5 |ig/L, the PQL for PCBs
could not be re-evaluated graphically with these data. However, the two of the three lowest
spike concentrations close to the current PQL, WS 31 (0.445 |ig/L) and WS  35 (0.596 |ig/L), had
passing rates of 69 and 80 percent, respectively. These passing rates suggest that the current
PQL of 0.5 |J.g/L is unlikely to change.


Conclusion for PCBs


    Since the promulgation of the NPDWR for PCBs, EPA Method 508A has been the only
method approved for PCB determination.  As the current PQL was derived from the MDL
multiplier method rather than multi-laboratory performance data, a PQL re-evaluation was
attempted using current PE data from WS 31 to 41. The high percentage of laboratories passing
the PE testing within the designated acceptance limits and the relatively high spike
concentrations prevented a conclusive re-evaluation of the PQL using the historical approach.
However, spike concentrations close to the current PQL had laboratory passing rates close to 75
percent.  This suggests that the current PQL is appropriate and unlikely to change.
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
109
Final - March 2003

-------
Pentachlorophenol
Results of the Method Comparison
    With the promulgation of NPDWRs for Phase II SOCs, two methods were approved for the
determination of pentachlorophenol in drinking water: EPA Methods 515.1 and 525.1 (56 FR
3526).  Since promulgation of this rule, EPA removed EPA Method 525.1 and approved the use
of five new or updated methods: EPA Methods 515.2, 515.3, 555, 525.2, and ASTM Method
D5317-93 (GC with ECD), a voluntary consensus method.  The MDLs of these methods are
indicated in Table 60.
Table 60.      Results of the Analytical Methods Comparison for Pentachlorophenol
               (Newly Promulgated Methods Are Indicated in Bold)
Methods Approved At Promulgation
Method
EPA515.11
EPA 525. 11




Technique
GC with ECD
LSE and GC/MS




MDL
(Hg/L)
0.076 '
0.3-3.0*




Currently Approved Methods (141.24)
Method
EPA 5 15. 12
EPA 515.22
EPA 515.34
EPA 52S.22
EPA 5553
D5317-935
Technique
GC with ECD
LSE and GC with ECD
LLE, derivatization and
GC with ECD
LSE and GC/MS
LLE, derivatization and
GC with ECD
GC with ECD
MDL
(Hg/L)
0.032
0.16
0.021 -
0.085*
0.72 - 1.0*
0.15- 1.6*
N/A°
     MCL = 1 [ig/L    Current PQL = 1 [ig/L     DLA = 0.04 [ig/L     Acceptance Limit* = ± 50%
 1 "Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water," EPA/600/4-88/039, December
 1988.

 2 "Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water--Supplement III,"
 EPA/600/R-95/131, August 1995.

 3 "Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water—Supplement II," EPA/600/R-
 92/129, August 1992.

 4 "Determination of Chlorinated Acids in Drinking Water by Liquid-liquid Extraction, Derivatization and Gas
 Chromatography with Electron Capture Detection," Revision 1.0, EPA/815/B-99/001, July 1996.

 5 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 1994, Vol.  11.01. American Society for Testing and Materials, 1961 Race
 Street. Philadelphia, PA 19103.
 A Regulatory DLs for organic compounds are listed at 40 CFR §141.24(h)(18).

 t Acceptance limits for organic compounds are listed at are listed at 40 CFR §141.24(h)(19)(i).

 * Multiple MDL values result from variability of reagents, instrumentation and/or laboratory performance.
 0 N/A = not available. MDLs for voluntary consensus standard methods are not specified.

 ' EDL = estimated detection limit, used to approximate the MDL.	
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
110
Final - March 2003

-------
    As shown in Table 60, most of the current EPA methods for pentachlorophenol do not
display a significant increase in analytical sensitivities as compared to the methods approved at
the time of the Phase II rule promulgation. The exception is EPA Method 515.1, which has
approximately twice the sensitivity of the prior version of the same method approved at the time
of promulgation.


Results of the Analysis of the WS Data
a.  Method Usage Over Time
    The distribution of analytical methods used by the EPA and State laboratories in WS 34 to 41
is plotted in Figure 35.  The "other" techniques represent methods which were not specifically
identified by participating laboratories or were otherwise unknown.  As shown in Figure 35,
despite the addition of several new analytical methods, the majority of laboratories still favored
the use of EPA Method 515.1 for determination of pentachlorophenol during WS 34 to 41.  The
more recently approved EPA Methods 515.2 and 555 were used much less frequently, by
comparison. EPA Method 525.2 was only used intermittently during the study period.
   Figure 35. Distribution of Analytical Techniques by WS Study: Pentachlorophenol

                                  Pentachlorophenol
        100%
     
-------
b. Results of the PQL Analysis
   EPA determined the current PQL of 1 i-ig/L (0.001 mg/L) for pentachlorophenol using earlier
water supply data (WS 22 to 25, 56 FR 3552).  A re-evaluation of the PQL was attempted using
more recent PE data from WS 24 to 41.  Table 61 summarizes the data from these WS studies
(with the exception of WS 25, 27, and 30), indicating the study number, the true value of the WS
sample, the number of results from EPA and State laboratories, and the percentage of
laboratories whose results successfully passed the acceptance limits of ± 50 percent for
pentachlorophenol (40 CFR §141.24(h)(19)(i)).
Table 61.     Evaluation of Pentachlorophenol Data from WS Studies Using the ± 50%
              Acceptance Limits (in Order of Increasing Concentration)
ws#
24a
33
26a
37
29
35
32
31
36
38
24b
40
34
41
26b
39
Spiked "True" Value 
-------
estimated PQL. Furthermore, there were very few water studies with spiked samples below the
current PQL. Thus, a new PQL could not be derived using this procedure.
   Figure 36. Evaluation of PE WS Data: Pentachlorophenol

                                    Pentachlorophenol






D)

'in
ro
Q.
A
ro
_i
xp
0^





1 UU"/0 ~
90% -
80% -

70% -



60% -

50% -


40% -


30% -
20% -

10% -
no/. -

<



















•
*
[ 	 „. ._ 	 » 	 , 	
* * 	 *
75%
^

•










Current PQL = 1


                            10      15      20      25      30

                                        True Value (ug/L)
                      35
    40
45
Conclusion for Pentachlorophenol
    The plot of the method usage over time for WS 34 to 41 indicates laboratories consistently
used EPA Method 515.1 more frequently than other methods. The detection limit for EPA 515.1
has not changed over time, as shown by the results of the method comparison (Table 60).  The
available WS data did not provide a basis for lowering the PQL for two reasons: the passing
rates of laboratories were generally greater than the 75 percent criterion for PQL estimation and
the true value concentrations typically exceeded the current PQL.
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
113
Final - March 2003

-------
Picloram
Results of the Method Comparison
    Picloram became a regulated SDWA contaminant in 1992 with the promulgation of
NPDWRs for Phase V SOCs (57 FR 31776). At that time, the sole method approved for
determination of picloram in drinking water was EPA Method 515.1.  Since promulgation of the
Phase V rule, EPA has added two methods to the approved list: EPA Methods 515.2 and 555.
Table 62 summarizes MDL information for the current and former approved methods for
picloram.
Table 62.     Results of the Analytical Methods Comparison for Picloram (Newly
              Promulgated  Methods Are Indicated in Bold)
Methods Approved At Promulgation
Method
EPA 515. 11



Technique
GC with BCD



MDL
(Hg/L)
0.14 '



Currently Approved Methods
Method
EPA 5 15. 12
EPA 515.23
EPA 515.34
EPA 5552
Technique
GC with BCD
LSE and GC with BCD
LLE, derivatization and GC
with BCD
HPLC with a Photodiode
Array Ultraviolet Detector
MDL
(Hg/L)
0.15
0.35
0.47-1*
0.5
          = 500jj,g/L     Current PQL = 1 jig/L     DLA = 0.1|ig/L     Acceptance Limit* = 2*S.D.
 1 "Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water," EPA/600/4-88/039, December
 1988.
 2 "Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water Supplement II," EPA/600/R-92/129,
 August 1992.
 3 "Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water--Supplement III,"
 EPA/600/R-95/131, August 1995.
 4 "Determination of Chlorinated Acids in Drinking Water by Liquid-liquid Extraction, Derivatization and Gas
 Chromatography with Electron Capture Detection," Revision 1.0, EPA/815/B-99/001, July 1996.
 A Regulatory DLs for organic compounds are listed at 40 CFR §141.24(h)(18).

 f Acceptance limits for organic compounds are listed at are listed at 40 CFR §141.24(h)(19)(i).
 " EDL = estimated detection limit, used to approximate the MDL.
 * Multiple MDL values result from variability of reagents, instrumentation and/or laboratory performance.	
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
114
Final - March 2003

-------
Results of the Analysis of the WS Data


a.  Method Usage Over Time


   The distribution of analytical methods used during each water study from WS 34 to 41 were
plotted (Figure 37). The "other" techniques represent methods which were not specifically
identified by participating laboratories or were otherwise unknown.  As shown in Figure 37,
during WS 34 to 36, the majority of laboratories used EPA Method 515.1  for determination of
picloram. Use of EPA Method 515.2 gradually increased over this period but was still greatly
outweighed by use of EPA Method 515.1. Laboratories employed EPA Method 555 only
minimally.


    Figure 37.  Distribution of Analytical Techniques by WS Study: Picloram

                                       Picloram
   100%

    90% -

    80% -

o   70% -
.c
5   60% -
D)
•|   50% -

JS   40% -

SS   30% -

    20% -

    10% -
          0%
                In
In
               WS34   WS35   WS36   WS 37   WS 38   WS 39  WS 40   WS41

                                       Water Study
b. Results of the PQL Analysis
    The original PQL for picloram of 1.0 |ig/L was derived by multiplying the detection limit
(DL) by a factor of 10 (57 FR 31776). With the availability of more recent PE data, a
reassessment of the PQL was attempted.  Table 63 summarizes the data from WS 24 to 41 (with
the exception of WS 25, 27, and 29, which lacked data), indicating the study number, the true
value of the WS sample, the number of results from EPA and State laboratories, and the
percentage of laboratories whose results successfully passed within the acceptance limits for
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
                  115
                                                             Final - March 2003

-------
picloram.  These limits (± 2*S.D.) are not fixed but essentially represent a function of the true
value (40 CFR §141.24(h)(19)(i)).
Table 63.     Evaluation of Picloram Data from WS Studies Using the ± 2* S.D.
              Acceptance Limits (in Order of Increasing Concentration)
ws#
26b
24b
32
34
33
24a
30
37
31
26a
36
40
38
41
35
39
Spiked "True" Value (ng/L)
1.33
2.63
10.6
13.2
17.4
17.5
22.4
23.3
26.7
31.2
42.2
44.0
56.4
62.1
62.5
74.9
# Results from EPA and
State Labs
11
12
32
43
24
11
26
38
12
12
45
43
43
35
24
37
% Labs Passing ± 2* S.D.
Acceptance Limits
63.6
91.7
93.8
93.0
100
100
88.5
100
91.7
91.7
100
95.3
93.0
97.1
79.2
100
    As shown by Table 63, participating EPA and State laboratories in every water study but one
(WS 26b) achieved a passing rate above the 75 percent criterion for determination of the PQL.
Therefore, estimation of the PQL is likely to not be meaningful for this dataset. In addition, the
entire range of true values for this contaminant exceeded the current PQL, some by nearly two
orders of magnitude, preventing any assertions on the appropriateness of a lower PQL.
Conclusion for Picloram
    The available WS data do not support a reassessment of the PQL based on the 75 percent
criterion because the passing rates of laboratories almost always exceeded this value. Therefore,
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
116
Final - March 2003

-------
a quantitative reassessment of the PQL could not be performed using the graphical approach.
The current PQL of 1 i-ig/L appears to still be appropriate.
Tetrachloroethylene
Results of the Method Comparison
    The final January 1991 NPDWR for Phase II VOCs (56 FR 3526) approved several
analytical methods for tetrachloroethylene. These included EPA Methods 502.1, 502.2, 503.1,
524.1, and 524.2.  Since this regulation was promulgated, the Agency retained EPA Methods
502.2 and 524.2 for determination of tetrachloroethylene and introduced a new GC variation,
EPA Method 551.1.  Table 64 summarizes the MDLs for both the original and currently
approved versions of the methods.  As shown in Table 64, EPA Methods 502.2 and 551.1 have
greater detection sensitivity than EPA Method 524.2.
Table 64.    Results of the Analytical Methods Comparison for Tetrachloroethylene
             (Newly Promulgated Methods in Bold)
MCL = 5 jig/L Current PQL = 5 [ig/L DLA = 0.5 jig/L Acceptance Limits* = ± 20% (>10 jig/L) or
± 40% (<10 jig/L)
Methods Approved At Promulgation
Method
EPA 502. 11
EPA 502.21
EPA 503. 11
EPA 524. 11
EPA 524.21
Technique
Purge and Trap GC
Purge and Trap GC
Purge and Trap GC
Purge and Trap
GC/MS
Purge and Trap
GC/MS
MDL
(ng/L)
0.001
0.02-
0.05*
0.01
0.3
0.05-
0.14*
Currently Approved Methods (141.24)
Method
EPA 502.22
EPA 524.22
EPA 551.12


Technique
Purge and Trap GC
Purge and Trap
GC/MS
LLE and GC with
ECD


MDL
(ng/L)
0.02-0.05*
0.05-0.14*
0.002


Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
111
Final - March 2003

-------
 1 "Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water," EPA/600/4-88/039, December
 1988.

 2 "Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water—Supplement III," EPA/600/R-
 95/131, August 1995.

 * Multiple method detection limit (MDL) values result from variability of reagents, instrumentation and/or
 laboratory/analyst performance.
 * Regulatory DLs for organic compounds are listed at 40 CFR § 141.24(f)(17).

 t Acceptance limits for VOCs are listed at 40 CFR § 141.24(f)(17)(i).	
Results of the Analysis of the WS Data


a.  Method Usage Over Time


    The distribution of the different methods used by EPA and State laboratories during WS
studies 34 to 41 are shown in Figure 38. The category of "other" contains those methods that
were unknown or unidentified by the participating laboratories.  During WS 34 to 41, EPA
Method 524.2 was the favored method for determining tetrachloroethylene among participating
laboratories. Use of EPA Method 524.2 generally increased slightly over time while usage of
EPA Method 502.2 declined.  No use of EPA Method 551.1 was observed during these studies.
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review       118                        Final - March 2003

-------
  Figure 38. Distribution of Analytical Techniques by WS Study:
  Tetrachloroethylene

                                  Tetrachloroethylene
1 UU /o
90% -
80% -
"§ 70% -
.c
1 60% -
^> \J\J /O
O>
•5J 50% -
.a 40% -
re
SS 30% -
20% -
10% -

0% -





















—
t.
^

„
11 "














_












•
•^J








T*
ff
4<
|
:4*i














_












•
•_,J








"^
fc

**'"
ft






—







_












•
•_,J








rn
|
^
"",'"'-
»i^-
Wml













_












•
•^J









?
'T'""
•|
*-^"
^




~








—












m
m^j









¥
•V
r^;

H«X



,— i























•_,_










*'
'8
*5f




,— i









_












•
•_,J









P
^
%*
*vf




1 — |























•





0 502.2
D 524.2
• other






             WS34   WS35   WS36   WS 37   WS 38   WS 39   WS 40   WS41

                                      Water Study
b.  Results of the PQL Analysis
    The Agency set the original PQL at 5 jig/L (52 FR 25700 and 56 FR 3526) for all VOCs
except vinyl chloride. More recent data from WS 27 through 41 were used to re-evaluate the
PQL for tetrachloroethylene.  Table 65 summarizes the results of these WS studies providing the
study number, the spiked value for the WS sample, the number of laboratory results reported,
and the percent of laboratories passing the WS proficiency test for tetrachloroethylene within the
acceptance limits of ± 20 percent for a true value greater than 10 |ig/L, or ± 40 percent for a true
value less than 10 jig/L (specified at 141.24(f)(17)(i)).
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
119
Final - March 2003

-------
Table 65.     Evaluation of Tetrachloroethylene Data from WS Studies Using the ± 20%
              or ±  40% Acceptance Limits (in Order of Increasing Concentration)
ws#
32
39
27
30
37
41
31
35
33
38
40
29
34
36
Spiked "True"
Value (|ig/L)
7.43
7.60
7.76
9.00
9.60
11.5
11.6
11.6
12.9
14.1
14.7
15.6
16.5
18.5
# Results from EPA
and State Labs
63
45
35
60
48
41
33
36
34
56
58
34
60
61
% Labs Passing ± 20%
Acceptance Limits





92.7
97.0
91.7
91.2
94.6
91.4
85.3
96.7
91.8
% Labs Passing ± 40%
Acceptance Limits
100
97.8
100
100
100









    The data for tetrachloroethylene could not be used to re-evaluate the PQL because State and
EPA laboratories, on average, passed the performance evaluation at a rate over 90 percent.
Thus, laboratories surpassed the standard 75 percent acceptance criterion typically used to
determine the PQL.  In addition, the true value concentrations observed in the available WS data
were all greater than the current PQL of 5 |ig/L.  At concentrations close to the current PQL
(7.43, 7.60 and 7.76 i-ig/L), the passing rates were 100, 98 and 100 percent, respectively. This
data suggest that the current PQL of 5 |ig/L could be lower.
Conclusion for Tetrachloroethylene
    The method comparison results show that since the promulgation of analytical methods for
tetrachloroethylene under the NPDWR, one method was retained (EPA Method 524.2) and two
methods were added (EPA Methods 502.2 and 551.1).  The most commonly used method in
recent WS studies has been EPA Method 524.2, which is also the least sensitive method of the
past and present methods. The MDL and method usage information together imply that
observable analytical sensitivities for this contaminant have not improved since the promulgation
of the Phase I rule. This conclusion is further supported by the observation that EPA 551.1, the
most sensitive of the three currently approved methods, appears from the WS data to not be
employed by EPA or State laboratories.  Evaluation of the quantitative PE data showed that the
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
120
Final - March 2003

-------
majority of the laboratories conducting WS analyses had surpassed the 75 percent criterion. The
high percentage of laboratories passing and high true value concentrations apparent in the WS
data prevented a re-evaluation of the PQL using the graphical approach.  However, the high
laboratory passing rates at concentrations slightly above the current PQL may suggest that the
PQL could be lower.
Thallium
Results of the Method Comparison
   With the Phase V lOCs (57 FR 31776), furnace atomic absorption (AAF; EPA Method
279.2), inductively coupled plasma (ICP)/MS (EPA Method 200.8), and platform AA
spectrometry (EPA Method 200.9) were the approved methods listed for analysis of thallium in
drinking water.  Since this regulation was promulgated, the only change in approved analytical
methods made by the Agency was the removal of EPA 279.2 from the list of approved analytical
methods. MDLs for EPA Methods 200.8 and 200.9 have not changed, as indicated in Table 66.
This table also shows that the discontinued EPA Method 279.2 was less sensitive than EPA
Methods 200.8 and 200.9, meaning that the collective methods approved since promulgation are,
on average, more sensitive  than the methods approved at the time of promulgation. EPA Method
200.8 is approximately twice as sensitive than the other currently  approved method, EPA
Method 200.9.
Table 66.    Results of the Analytical Methods Comparison for Thallium
MCL = 2 [ig/L Current PQL = 2 |ig/L DL* = 0.3 - 0.7 [ig
Methods Approved At Promulgation
Method
EPA 279.2 '
EPA 200.81
EPA 200.91
Technique
AAF
ICP/MS
AAF
MDL Oig/L)
r
0.3
0.7
/L Acceptance Limit* = ± 30%
Currently Approved Methods
Method
EPA 200. 82
EPA 200. 92

Technique
ICP/MS
AAP

MDL (ng/L)
0.01-0.3*
0.7

1 "Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes (MCAWW)," EPA/600/4-79/020, March 1983.
2 "Methods for the Determination of Metals in Environmental Samples—Supplement I," EPA/600/R-94/111, May
1994.
* Regulatory DLs for inorganic compounds are listed at 40 CFR §141.23(a)(4)(i) and depend on analytical
methodology.
f Acceptance limits are listed at 40 CFR §141.23(k)(3)(ii).

* Multiple method detection limit (MDL) values result from variability of reagents, instrumentation and/or
laboratory /analyst performance.
" EDL = estimated detection limit, used to approximate the MDL.

Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
121
Final - March 2003

-------
Results of the Analysis of the WS Data
a.  Method Usage Over Time
   Figure 39 shows the variety of analytical techniques used by EPA and State laboratories in
WS studies 34 to 41.  The results for "other" techniques in this figure include the use of any
other technique identified by the laboratories participating in the WS study, as well as
"unknown" methods, i.e., techniques for which laboratories did not report the type of method
used. In recent years, method usage by laboratories participating in the water studies has been
dominated by EPA Method 200.9 (AAP) which is actually less sensitive than the other approved
method, EPA Method 200.8 (ICP/MS).
     Figure 39. Distribution of Analytical Techniques by WS Study: Thallium

                                         Thallium
       •o
       o
       "3
       s
       O>

       D
       J§
       5
90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

 0%
                                                         t
           Q 200.9

           D 279.2

           • 200.8

           n other
               WS34   WS35   WS36   WS 37   WS 38    WS 39    WS 40   WS 41

                                         Water Study
b. Results of the PQL Analysis
    The current PQL (2 |ig/L) was originally set using PE data from WS 24 through 27. For the
PQL re-evaluation, data were taken from WS 24 to 41 (57 FR 31801).  Table 67 summarizes the
results of these water studies, providing the study number, the spiked value for the WS sample,
the number of results from EPA and State laboratories, and the results evaluated using
acceptance limits of ± 30 percent (specified at 141.23(k)(3)(ii)).
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
                                  122
Final - March 2003

-------
Table 67.     Evaluation of Thallium Data from WS Studies Using the 30% Acceptance
              Limits (in Order of Increasing Concentration)
ws#
31
24a
37
32
25b
41
26
36
30
39
34
35
38
33
29
40
24b
27
25a
Spiked "True" Value
(ng/L)
1.44
2.00
2.38
2.56
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.30
5.60
6.19
8.00
8.91
9.56
9.74
10.0
18.0
26.9
36.0
# Results from EPA and State
Labs
27
30
43
60
21
44
37
61
48
47
58
41
59
32
21
59
35
23
26
% Labs Passing ± 30%
Acceptance Limit
82
80
91
88
81
96
87
98
92
98
97
93
95
91
95
98
89
91
96
    Using the 75 percent criterion, EPA and regional laboratories were able to achieve acceptable
results within the ±30 percent acceptance window over the entire range of tested concentrations,
i.e., 1.44 to 36 |ig/L. Upon examination of the data, the current PQL of 2 |ig/L appears to be
easily supportable, as over 75 percent of laboratories successfully passed within the acceptance
limits when tested at those concentration.  It might even be possible for the labs to pass at a
slightly lower concentration; however, a conclusion is uncertain in the absence of additional data
below the PQL concentrations.
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
123
Final - March 2003

-------
Conclusion for Thallium
    The method comparison results indicate that use of the least sensitive method was
discontinued since promulgation of NPDWRs.  In addition, the MDLs of all the possible
methods do not differ much between themselves (only by about a factor of two) with the ICP/MS
method having greater sensitivity. The method usage over time shows that EPA Method 200.9,
the less sensitive method, was the preferred choice for EPA and State laboratories. Based on the
evaluation of more recent quantitative PE data, the current PQL of 2 |ig/L using a ± 30 percent
acceptance limit appears to still be supportable and appropriate.  Data do suggest that it may
possible for the labs to pass at a slightly lower concentration.
Toluene
Results of the Method Comparison
    The NPDWR for Phase II VOCs (56 FR 3526) approved several analytical methods for
toluene. These included EPA Methods 502.2, 503.1, 524.1, and 524.2.  Since this regulation was
promulgated, the Agency retained EPA Methods 502.2 and 524.2 for determination of toluene.
Table 68 summarizes the MDL for both the original and currently approved versions of the
methods. As shown in Table 68, the MDLs of the two current methods remain essentially
unchanged from their values at promulgation of the rule.
Table 68.    Analytical Methods Comparison for Toluene
MCL = 1 mg/L Current PQL = 5 [ig/L DLA = 0.5 [ig/L Acceptance Limitf = ± 20% (>10 ng/L) or
± 40% (<10 [ig/L)
Methods Approved At Promulgation
Method
EPA502.21
EPA 503. 11
EPA 524. 11
EPA 524.21
Technique
Purge and Trap GC
Purge and Trap GC
Purge and Trap GC/MS
Purge and Trap GC/MS
MDL
(ng/L)
0.01-0.02*
0.02
0.1
0.08-0.11*
Currently Approved Methods (141.24)
Method
EPA 502.22
EPA 524.22


Technique
Purge and Trap GC
Purge and Trap
GC/MS


MDL
(ng/L)
0.01-0.02*
0.08-0.11*


Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
124
Final - March 2003

-------
 1 "Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water," EPA/600/4-88/039, December
 1988.

 2 "Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water—Supplement III," EPA/600/R-
 95/131, August 1995.

 * Multiple method detection limit (MDL) values result from variability of reagents, instrumentation, and/or
 laboratory/analyst performance.
 - Regulatory DLs for VOCs are listed at 40 CFR § 141.24(f)(17)(i).
 t Acceptance limits for VOCs are listed at 40 CFR § 141.24(f)(17)(i).	
Results of the Analysis of the WS Data


a.  Method Usage Over Time


    The distribution of analytical methods used by participating laboratories from WS 34 to 41 is
shown in Figure 40. The category of "other" contains those methods that were unknown or
unidentified by the participating laboratories. As shown in Figure 40, EPA Method 524.2 was
the preferred method for laboratories participating in WS 34 to 41 and the use of EPA Method
502.2 decreased over time.


     Figure 40.  Distribution of Analytical Techniques by WS Study: Toluene

                                            Toluene
           100%
           90% -

           80% -
        o  70% -j
        5  60% -
        O)
        .E  50% -j
        (A

        w  40% -
        TO
        ^  30% -

           20% -

           10%
       n
0
                  WS34    WS35   WS36   WS37    WS38   WS39   WS40   W341

                                            Water Study
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
125
    Final - March 2003

-------
b.  Results of the PQL Analysis
    The Agency set the original PQL at 5 jig/L (52 FR 25700 and 56 FR 3526) for all VOCs
except vinyl chloride. More recent data from WS 29 through 41 were used to re-evaluate the
PQL for toluene.  Table 69 summarizes the results of these WS studies providing the study
number, the spiked value for the WS sample, the number of laboratory results, and the percent of
laboratories passing the WS proficiency test for toluene within specified acceptance limits.  The
acceptance limits for toluene are ± 20% for a true value greater than 10 |ig/L or ± 40% for a true
value lower than 10 |ig/L (as specified at 141.24(f)(17)(i)).


Table 69.     Evaluation of Toluene Data from WS Studies Using Either 20% or 40% Acceptance
              Limits (in Order of Increasing Concentration)
ws#
37
32
30
35
29
33
36
40
31
34
38
41
39
Spiked "True"
Value (ng/L)
5.7
6.54
8.02
9.92
11.5
12.3
13.2
14.6
15.3
15.6
16.2
18.7
24.4
# Results from EPA
and State Labs
48
63
59
35
35
33
60
58
35
60
56
42
44
% EPA and State
Passing ± 20%
Acceptance Limit




94.3
90.9
96.7
96.6
100
98.3
96.4
95.2
88.6
% EPA and State
Passing ± 40%
Acceptance Limit
100
100
98.0
100









    A re-evaluation of the PQL for toluene could not be performed using the available PE data in
Table 4.  All of the passing rates in Table 4 were well above the 75 percent criterion necessary to
recalculate the PQL.  In addition, the true value concentrations observed in the available WS
data were all greater than the current PQL of 5 |ig/L. However, at concentrations close to the
current PQL (spikes of 5.7, 6.54, and 8.02 |ig/L), the passing rates were 100, 100 and 98 percent,
respectively.  These data suggest that the a lower PQL may exist for toluene.
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
126
Final - March 2003

-------
Conclusion for Toluene
   The method comparison results show that since the promulgation of analytical methods
under the NPDWR, no new methods have been approved for the analysis of toluene, and
analytical capabilities have remained essentially constant. The most commonly used method has
been EPA Method 524.2, which is also the least sensitive method of the past and present
methods. Evaluation of the PE data show that the majority of the laboratories conducting WS
analyses surpassed the 75 percent criterion typically used to derive a PQL.  However, the high
laboratory passing rates (> 95%) at concentrations slightly above the current PQL of 5 |ig/L
suggest that the PQL for toluene could be lower.
Toxaphene
Results of the Method Comparison
   At the promulgation of the NPDWRs for Phase II SOCs, three GC methods, EPA Method
505 (GC with microextraction), EPA Method 508 (GC with ECD), and EPA Method 525.1
(GC/MS with LSE), were approved for the determination of toxaphene in drinking water (56 FR
3552). Since that time, EPA has approved two additional GC and GC/MS methods, respectively:
EPA Methods 508.1 and 525.2 (both featuring LSE extraction).  Table 70 provides a summary of
MDLs for the approved methods. As shown in Table 70, EPA Method 508 does not specify the
MDL for toxaphene.  The MDL for EPA Method 525.2 is comparable to that of EPA Method
505.  The MDL of EPA Method 505 has not changed over time, 1 i-ig/L. The MDLs of the newer
methods range from about 0.03 to 1.7 |ig/L. The most sensitive method currently available, EPA
Method 508.1, has about eight times the sensitivity of EPA Method 505.
Table 70.  Results of the Analytical Methods Comparison for Toxaphene (Newly
Promulgated Methods in Bold)
MCL = 3jig/L Current PQL = 3 [ig/L DLA = 1 jig/L Acceptance Limit* = ± 45%
Methods Approved At Promulgation
Method
EPA 505 '
EPA 5081
EPA 525. 11

Technique
Microextraction and GC
GC with ECD
LSE and GC/MS

MDL
(Hg/L)
1.0
ND
15

Currently Approved Methods (141.24)
Method
EPA 5052
EPA 508 2
EPA 508. 12
EPA 525.2 2
Technique
Microextraction and GC
GC with ECD
LSE and GC with ECD
LSE and GC/MS
MDL
(Hg/L)
1.0
ND
0.13
1.0- 1.7*
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
127
Final - March 2003

-------
 1 "Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water," EPA/600/4-88/039, December
 1988.

 2 "Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water—Supplement III," EPA/600/R-
 95/131, August 1995.

 * Multiple method detection limit (MDL) values result from variability of reagents, instrumentation, and/or
 laboratory/analyst performance.

 •Regulatory DLs for organic compounds are listed at 40 CFR § 141.24(h)(18).

 t Acceptance limits for organic compounds are listed at 40 CFR § 141.24(h)(19)(i).

 ND = Not determined.
Results of the Analysis of the WS Data


a.  Method Usage Over Time


    Figure 41 illustrates the methods chosen by EPA and State laboratories for toxaphene
analysis during WS PE studies 34 to 41. The category of "other" includes any unidentified or
unreported techniques used by participating laboratories. As shown in Figure 41, the
predominant method used by laboratories participating in the WS studies was EPA Method 508,
followed by EPA Method 505. Other methods such as EPA Methods 525.1, 525.2, and other
unidentified methods were used intermittently throughout WS 34 to 41. EPA Method 508.1 was
not used by laboratories according to the PE data.
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review       128                        Final - March 2003

-------
   Figure 41. Distribution of Analytical Techniques by WS Study: Toxaphene

                                      Toxaphene
       100%

        90% -

        80% -

    "§  70%
    .c
    1  60%
     D)
    •5J  50% -
    D
    .a  40% -
     re

    SS  30% -

        20% -

        10% -

         0%
U.
m
                                                           • 505

                                                           0508

                                                           • 525.1

                                                           •525.2

                                                           d other
              WS34   WS35   WS36   WS 37   WS 38   WS 39   WS 40   WS41

                                       Water Study
b. Results of the PQL Analysis
    The current PQL of 3 |ig/L was derived by multiplying the IMDL by factor of five (56 FR
3526). With the availability of more recent WS data, EPA reviewed the data from WS studies 24
to 41 to attempt a PQL re-evaluation. Table 71 summarizes each WS result including the spiked
(or "true") value, the number of participating laboratories, and the percentage of laboratories
passing within the specified acceptance limit for toxaphene (± 45 percent as designated in 40
CFR§141.24(h)(19)(i)).
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
                         129
                     Final - March 2003

-------
Table 71.     Evaluation of Toxaphene Data from WS Studies Using the 45% Acceptance
              Limits (in Order of Increasing Concentration)
ws#
25b
24b
30
31
39
26b
32
25a
34
27
41
24a
29
37
o o
JJ
26a
38
36
40
35
Spiked "True" Value (ng/L)
1.41
2.33
2.80
3.31
3.65
3.68
3.71
4.22
5.37
6.39
6.90
7.58
7.60
8.81
9.23
10.8
12.7
14.7
16.5
18.3
# Results from EPA and
State Labs
35
59
54
31
41
58
56
35
54
34
39
60
33
46
33
58
50
52
56
34
% Labs Passing ± 45%
Acceptance Limits
97.1
91.5
92.6
93.5
92.7
94.8
92.9
94.3
94.4
91.2
92.3
91.7
97.0
87.0
90.9
96.6
92.0
90.4
94.6
97.1
    EPA prefers to evaluate the PQL as the concentration at which 75 percent of laboratories are
able to pass the proficiency exam within the 45 percent acceptance limits. In the case of
toxaphene, however, this approach could not be used, since the percentage of laboratories
passing within acceptance limits was well above the 75 percent criterion. Also, very few WS
studies (e.g., 24b, 25b and 30) involved true value concentrations near the current PQL; all other
studies involved spiked values above 3 |ig/L. Because of these data limitations, the PQL could
not be re-evaluated using the historical linear regression approach. However, the observed high
success rates of laboratories suggests that the PQL may be lowered.  Since 97 percent of
participating laboratories, on average, were able to determine concentrations at about half of the
existing PQL, this success rate suggests that a lower PQL probably would not challenge most
laboratories' analytical capabilities.
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
130
Final - March 2003

-------
Conclusion for Toxaphene
    The 1991 NPDWR for toxaphene approved the use of EPA Methods 505, 508, and 525.1 for
toxaphene determination in drinking water. EPA Methods 508.1 and 525.2, using similar GC
technologies, were approved more recently.  The MDL of EPA Method 508.1 was the most
sensitive compared to all other methods; however, data on method usage over time revealed that
this method was not employed by laboratories. Instead, laboratories participating in the PE
studies used EPA Method 508 with the greatest frequency.  Unfortunately, no data are available
regarding the MDL of this method. A PQL re-evaluation could not be completed due to the high
success rates (well above the 75 percent criterion) in each water study as well as the high spiked
concentrations in all but three water studies. The high success rates of laboratories during PE
testing at concentrations well below the current PQL leads to the inference that a lower PQL
would not greatly  lessen  laboratory performance.
l,l?l-Trichloroethane
Results of the Method Comparison


    The NPDWRs for 1,1,1-trichloroethane approved certain analytical methods for the
determination of this contaminant (52 FR 25690) and seven other Phase I VOCs.  These methods
included EPA Methods 502.1, 502.2, 503.1, 542.1, and 524.2.  Since this regulation was
promulgated, the Agency retained EPA Methods 502.2 and 524.2 for determination of 1,1,1-
trichloroethane and introduced a new GC variation, EPA Method 551.1, LLE/GC with ECD.
Table 72 summarizes the MDLs for both the original and current methods.


Table 72.     Results of the Analytical Methods Comparison for 1,14-Trichloroethane
             (Newly Promulgated Methods in  Bold)
MCL = 200 [ig/L Current PQL = 5 [ig/L DLA = 0.5 ng/L Acceptance Limitf = ± 20% (>10 ng/L) or
± 40% (<10 ng/L)
Methods Approved At Promulgation
Method
EPA 502. 11
EPA 502.21
EPA 524. 11
EPA 524.21
Technique
Purge and Trap GC
Purge and Trap GC
Purge and Trap GC/MS
Purge and Trap GC/MS
MDL*
(Hg/L)
0.003
0.01-
0.03*
0.3
0.04-
0.08*
Currently Approved Methods (141.24)
Method
EPA 502.22
EPA 524.22
EPA 551.12

Technique
Purge and Trap GC
Purge and Trap GC/MS
LLE and GC with ECD

MDL*
(Hg/L)
0.01-0.03
0.04-0.08
0.005-0.012

Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
131
Final - March 2003

-------
 1 "Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water," EPA/600/4-88/039, December
 1988.

 2 "Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water—Supplement III," EPA/600/R-
 95/131, August 1995.

 * The MDLs of the original methods for this contaminant ranged from 0.2 - 0.5 [ig/L according to the July 1987
 Federal Register notice promulgating NPDWRs for the VOCs (52 FR 25690).  However, the 1988 methods
 manual cited in footnote llists the MDLs shown above.

 * Multiple method detection limit (MDL) values result from variability of reagents, instrumentation and/or
 laboratory/analyst performance.

 ^Regulatory DLs for organic compounds are listed at 40 CFR § 141.24(f)(17)(i).

 tAcceptance limits are listed at 40 CFR § 141.24(f)(17)(i).	
Results of the Analysis of the WS Data


a.  Method Usage Over Time


    The distribution of the different methods used by the EPA and State laboratories during WS
studies 34 to 41 are  shown in Figure 42.  The category of "other" contains those methods that
were unknown or unidentified by the participating laboratories. As shown in Figure 42, the
increase in EPA and State laboratory usage of EPA Method 524.2 was accompanied by a gradual
decrease in use of EPA Method 502.2 during WS 34 to 41.  Although EPA Method 551.1 was
approved during this time, laboratories participating in WS studies did not report usage of this
method.
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review      132                        Final - March 2003

-------
     Figure 42. Distribution of Analytical Techniques by WS Study: 1,1,1-
     Trichloroethane

                                    1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
IUU/0 "
90% -
80% -
•§ 70% -
£
1 60%-
D)
•5J 50% -
.a 40% -
^3
SS 30% -
20% -
10% -
0% -










'
•.













LkJ
.




-








-,
Lb-^
—










J
                WS34   WS35   WS36   WS 37   WS 38   WS 39   WS 40   WS 41

                                          Water Study
b.  Results of the PQL Analysis
    As with the majority of the Phase I VOCs, the current PQL for 1,1,1-trichloroethane of 5
l-ig/L was determined using a multiplier often times the detection limit of 0.5 |ig/L (52 FR
25700). Re-evaluation of the PQL was attempted using data from WS studies 24 through 41.
Table 73 summarizes the results of these WS studies, providing the study number, the spiked
value for the WS sample, the number of laboratory  results, and the percent of laboratories
passing the WS proficiency test for 1,1,1-trichloroethane within the specified acceptance limits
(± 20 percent for true values greater than 10 |ig/L and ± 40 percent for true values less than 10
     as specified at 141.24(f)(17)(i)).
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
133
Final - March 2003

-------
Table 73.    Evaluation of 1,1,1-Trichloroethane Data from WS Studies Using the ± 20%
             or ±  40% Acceptance Limits (in Order of Increasing Concentration)
ws#
24
34
30
40
27
35
29
32
37
39
25
41
31
26
36
33
38
Spiked "True"
Value (jig/L)
3.21
5.73
7.13
7.20
7.38
8.78
8.80
10.1
10.3
11.2
11.3
12.6
13.0
13.6
14.5
14.6
17.2
# Results from EPA and
State Labs
57
59
59
57
37
34
35
62
47
43
37
41
36
59
59
33
54
% Labs Passing ± 20%
Acceptance Limits







95.2
87.2
90.7
83.8
100
100
86.4
100
87.9
96.3
% Labs Passing ± 40%
Acceptance Limits
98.2
100
98.3
98.2
97.3
100
100










    The 1,1,1-trichloroethane data from Table 73 are insufficient for a PQL re-evaluation using
the graphical or linear regression approach. The high laboratory passing rates do not permit
evaluation of the PQL using the 75 percent criterion. In addition, only one spike concentration
(WS 24) was below the current PQL of 5 |ig/L. However, the laboratory passing rates at spike
concentrations around the current PQL exceeded 98 percent. This information suggests that a
lower PQL could be possible.


Conclusion for 1.1.1-Trichloroethane


    The method comparison results show that since the promulgation of analytical methods
under the NPDWR, EPA Methods 502.2 and 524.2 have remained in use whereas EPA Method
551.1 was more recently approved.  While EPA Method 551.1 is the most  sensitive of the three
currently approved methods, this method is not currently used by EPA or State laboratories
according to the available WS data.  However, all current methods are more sensitive than the
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
134
Final - March 2003

-------
methods approved at promulgation, as shown in Table 72. Evaluation of the quantitative PE data
showed that the majority of the laboratories conducting WS analyses were able to surpass the 75
percent criterion needed to evaluate the PQL. Because of the high percentage of laboratories
passing and an insufficient number of spike concentrations below the 5 |ig/L, a re-evaluation of
the PQL could not be performed using the graphical approach.  However, the high passing rates
at concentrations slightly above 5 |ig/L are suggestive of a potential change in the current PQL.
l,l?2-Trichloroethane
Results of the Method Comparison
   As determined by the Phase I rules for volatile organic compounds (57 FR 31776), the
approved methods listed for analysis of 1,1,2-trichloroethane in drinking water were purge and
trap GC and GC/MS. Since this regulation was promulgated, the detection capability of EPA
Method 524.2 has become slightly more sensitive. One new analytical method, LLE/GC with
ECD (EPA 551.1), has been approved by the EPA since the promulgation of the original
methods. As shown in Table 74, all three currently approved methods have comparable MDLs.
However, EPA Method 502.1, which is no longer approved for analysis, has the greatest
sensitivity level of all the approved methods, past and present.
Table 74.    Results of the Analytical Methods Comparison for l,l?2-Trichloroethane
             (New Methods in Bold)
MCL = 5 [ig/L Current PQL = 5 [ig/L DLA = 0.5 [ig/L Acceptance Limit* = ± 20% (>10 |ig/L) or
± 40% (<10 jig/L)
Methods Approved At Promulgation
Method
EPA 502. 11
EPA 502.21
EPA 524. 11
EPA 524.21
Technique
Purge and Trap GC
Purge and Trap GC
GC/MS
GC/MS
MDL°
(Hg/L)
0.007
0.04
ND
0.03-0.1*
Currently Approved Methods (141.24)
Method
EPA 502.22
EPA 524.22
EPA 551. 12

Technique
Purge and Trap GC
GC/MS
LLE and GC with
ECD

MDL
(Hg/L)
0.04
0.03-0.1*
0.012-0.014*

Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
135
Final - March 2003

-------
 1 "Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water," EPA/600/4-88/039, December
 1988.

 2 "Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water—Supplement III," EPA/600/R-
 95/131, August 1995.

 * The MDLs of the original methods for this contaminant ranged from 0.2 - 0.5 [ig/L according to the July 1987
 Federal Register notice promulgating NPDWRs for the VOCs (52 FR 25690).  However, the 1988 methods
 manual cited in footnote llists the MDLs shown above.

 * Multiple method detection limit (MDL) values result from variability of reagents, instrumentation and/or
 laboratory/analyst performance.

 A Regulatory DLs for organic compounds are listed at 40 CFR §141.24(f)(17)(i).

 f Acceptance limits are listed at 40 CFR §141.24(f)(17)(i).

 ND = Not determined.
Results of the Analysis of the WS Data


a.  Method Usage Over Time


    Figure 43 shows the distribution of methods used by the EPA and State laboratories during
WS 34 to 41.  The category of "other" includes any unknown or unreported techniques used by
the participating laboratories. As shown in Figure 43, the predominant methods used since the
time of promulgation are EPA Methods 524.2 and 502.2. Although EPA approved a new
method (EPA Method 551.1), none of the laboratories that responded used it for analysis.
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review       136                        Final - March 2003

-------
     Figure 43. Distribution of Analytical Techniques by WS Study: 1,1*2-
     Trichloroethane

                                   1,1,2-Trichloroethane
         80%
               WS34   WS35   WS36   WS 37   WS 38  WS 39   WS 40   WS 41

                                       Water Study
b.  Results of the PQL analysis
    The original PQL for 1,1,2-trichloroethane was estimated from PE data (specifically WS 20,
23, and 26) to be 5 jig/L (55 FR 30414).  The PQL re-evaluation data were taken from WS 24
through 41 (note that data were not available for WS 24, 25, 27 to 29, and 31).  Table 75
summarizes the results of these studies, including the study number, the spiked (or "true") value
for the sample, the number of laboratory  results, and the percent of laboratories passing the WS
proficiency test for 1,1,2-trichloroethane within the specified acceptance limits (± 20 percent for
a spiked value of >10 |ig/L and ± 40 percent for a spiked value of <10 i-ig/L, as stipulated in 40
CFR§141.23(f)(17)(i)).
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
137
Final - March 2003

-------
Table 75.     Evaluation of 1,1,2-Trichloroethane Data from WS Studies Using Either
              20% or 40% Acceptance Limits (in Order of Increasing Concentration)
ws#
36
34
37
30
39
35
32
41
33
38
40
26
Spiked "True"
Value Oig/L)
6.46
8.50
10.7
11.5
12.3
12.8
13.2
13.3
15.7
16.3
17.2
26.9
# Results from EPA
and State Labs
59
59
47
50
42
35
51
40
34
54
57
54
% Labs Passing
± 20% Acceptance Limits


89.4
94.0
97.6
90.9
90.6
95.1
91.4
98.1
98.2
94.4
% Labs Passing
±40% Acceptance Limits
98.3
100










    The standard approach to develop or evaluate a PQL could not be performed with 1,1,2-
trichloroethane because the high laboratory passing percentage data (as shown in Table 75) does
not permit the plotting of a useful linear regression line. Therefore, the re-evaluation of the PQL
could not be done using these WS data. However, high laboratory passing rates at
concentrations slightly above the current PQL of 5 |ig/L suggest that a lower PQL may be
possible.
Conclusion for 1.1.2-Trichloroethane
    The method comparison shows that since the promulgation of the original analytical methods
for 1,1,2-trichloroethane, one new method (EPA Method 551.1) has been approved for
contaminant analysis.  However, laboratories who responded to the WS studies primarily chose
to use EPA Methods 524.2 and 502.2 rather than EPA Method 551.1, as shown by the plot of
method usage over time. The MDL for EPA Method 524.2 has decreased slightly over time,
indicating slightly greater sensitivity. While EPA Method 502.1 had a maximum MDL  of 0.007
l-ig/L, the lowest of any methods, it is currently not approved for 1,1,2-trichloroethane analyses.
The evaluation of the WS data show that the majority of participating labs surpassed the 75
percent EPA criterion. Hence, because of the high percentage of labs passing and the lack of
spike concentrations below the current PQL, a re-evaluation of the PQL could not be performed
using linear regression or graphical analysis. However, the high passing rates  at concentrations
slightly above 5 |ig/L are suggestive of a potential change in the current PQL.
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
138
Final - March 2003

-------
Trichloroethylene
Results of the Method Comparison
    The analytical methods approved for the determination of trichloroethylene under the
NPDWRs for Phase I VOCs include EPA Methods 502.1, 502.2, 524.1, and 524.2 (52 FR
25899). Since the promulgation of the rule in 1987, the Agency has added EPA Method 551.1, a
GC method with liquid-liquid extraction (LLE) and electron capture detector, to the list of
approved methods. The currently approved methods for trichloroethylene determination are
EPA Methods 502.2, 524.2, and 551.1.  Table 76 summarizes the MDLs for both the original and
current approved versions of the methods.


Table 76.     Results of the Analytical Methods Comparison for Trichloroethylene (Newly
             Promulgated Methods in Bold)
MCL = 5 ng/L Current PQL = 5 ng/L DLA = 0.5 ng/L Acceptance Limit* = ± 20% (>10 jig/L) or
± 40% (<10 ng/L)
Methods Approved At Promulgation
Method
EPA 502. 11
EPA 502.21
EPA 503. 11
EPA 524. 11
EPA 524.21
Technique
Purge and Trap GC
Purge and Trap GC
Purge and Trap GC
Purge and Trap
GC/MS
Purge and Trap
GC/MS
MDL*
(Hg/L)
0.001
0.01-0.06*
0.01
0.4
0.02-0.19*
Currently Approved Methods (141.24)
Method
EPA 502.22
EPA 524.22
EPA 551.12


Technique
Purge and Trap GC
Purge and Trap GC/MS
LLE and GC with BCD


MDL*
(Hg/L)
0.01-0.06
0.02-0.19
0.002 -
0.004


1 "Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water," EPA/600/4-88/039, December
1988.
2 "Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water-- Supplement III," EPA/600/R-
95/131, August 1995.
* The MDLs of the original methods for this contaminant ranged from 0.2 - 0.5 ng/L according to the July 1987
Federal Register notice promulgating NPDWRs for the VOCs (52 FR 25690). However, the 1988 methods
manual cited in footnote llists the MDLs shown above.
* Multiple method detection limit (MDL) values result from variability of reagents, instrumentation and/or
laboratory /analyst performance.
* Regulatory DLs for organic compounds are listed at 40 CFR § 141.24(f)(17)(i).
t Acceptance limits for VOCs are listed at 40 CFR § 141.24(f)(17)(i).
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
139
Final - March 2003

-------
Results of the Analysis of the WS Data


a.  Method Usage Over Time


   Figure 44 shows the distribution of the different methods used by the EPA and State
laboratories during WS studies 34 to 41. The category of "other" contains those methods that
were unknown or unidentified by the participating laboratories. As shown in Figure 44,
laboratories participating in studies WS 34 to 41 used EPA Method 524.2 with increasing
frequency over EPA Method 502.2. No laboratories used EPA Method 551.1 for PE
determinations of trichloroethylene.

      Figure 44.  Distribution of Analytical Techniques by WS Study: Trichloroethylene

                                      Trichloroethylene
                WS34   WS35   WS36   WS 37   WS 38  WS 39   WS 40   WS 41

                                         Water Study
b. Results of the PQL Analysis
    The original PQL of 5 |ig/L for trichloroethylene was determined by evaluation of data from
WS studies 8 to 11 (50 FR 46880). For the PQL reassessment, updated data from WS 24 to 41
were reviewed. Table 77 summarizes the results of these WS studies providing the study
number, the spiked value for the WS sample, the number of laboratory results, and the percent of
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
140
Final - March 2003

-------
laboratories passing the WS proficiency test for trichloroethylene within the acceptance limits (±
20 percent for a true value greater than 10 |ig/L, or ± 40 percent for a true value lower than 10
Table 77.     Evaluation of Trichloroethylene Data from WS Studies Using the ± 20% or ±
              40% Acceptance Limits (in Order of Increasing Concentration)
ws#
40
35
26
41
24
31
37
34
30
25
32
38
27
33
29
39
36
Spiked "True"
Value Gig/L)
5.80
6.13
6.63
6.87
7.36
7.46
8.70
8.89
9.45
10.4
11.2
12.4
14.0
14.9
15.9
16.4
17.4
# Results from EPA
and State Labs
58
34
59
41
57
36
48
60
38
37
63
55
37
34
34
44
61
% Labs Passing ± 20%
Acceptance Limits









83.8
95.2
94.5
91.9
94.1
85.3
95.5
96.7
% Labs Passing ± 40%
Acceptance Limits
98.3
97.1
100
100
100
97.2
97.9
100
100








    Table 77 reveals that the percentage of laboratories passing the acceptance limit averaged
over 90 percent. Because the laboratories exceeded the standard 75 percent criterion used to
estimate the PQL, the typical regression method could not be successfully employed to estimate
a new PQL value. Another limitation of the data was that the true value concentrations in the
available studies were all greater than 0.5 |ig/L, preventing evaluation of laboratory performance
at concentrations below the current PQL.  However, high laboratory passing rates at
concentrations slightly above the current PQL of 5 |ig/L suggest that a lower PQL may be
possible.
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
141
Final - March 2003

-------
Conclusion for Trichloroethylene
    The method comparison results show that, since the promulgation of analytical methods
under the original NPDWR for trichloroehtylene, two of these methods are no longer approved
for determination of this contaminant. While EPA Method 551.1 is the most sensitive of the
three currently approved methods, this method is not currently used by EPA or State laboratories
according to the available WS data.  Instead, EPA Method 524.2, the least sensitive of the three
current methods, has been the primary method of choice.  Evaluation of the quantitative PE data
shows that the majority of the laboratories conducting WS analyses had surpassed the 75 percent
criterion. Because of the high percentage of laboratories passing, a re-evaluation of the PQL
could not be performed using this approach. However, the high laboratory passing rates at
concentrations slightly above 5 |ig/L are suggestive of a change in the PQL.
Vinyl Chloride


Results of the Method Comparison


   With the promulgation of NPDWRs for Phase I VOCs (proposed November 1985, 50 FR
46905; finalized July 1987, 52 FR 25690), EPA Methods 502.1, 502.2, 524.1, and 524.2 were
listed as approved methods for the determination of vinyl chloride in drinking water. Since
promulgation of this rule, EPA Methods 502.1 and 524.1 were removed. As shown in Table 78,
the MDLs of the current methods are comparable in sensitivity to previously approved methods.


Table 78.     Results of the Analytical Methods Comparison for Vinyl Chloride
MCL = 2(ig/L Current PQL = 2 jig/L DLi = 0.5jig/L Acceptance Limit* = ± 40%
Methods Approved At Promulgation
Method
EPA 502. 11
EPA 502.21
EPA 524. 11
EPA 524.21
Technique
Purge and Trap GC
Purge and Trap GC
Purge and Trap
GC/MS
Purge and Trap
GC/MS
MDL°
(ng/L)
0.01
0.01 -0.18*
0.3
0.04-0.17*
Currently Approved Methods
Method
EPA 502.22
EPA 524.22


Technique
Purge and Trap GC
Purge and Trap
GC/MS


MDL*
(ng/L)
0.01-0.18
0.04-0.17


Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
142
Final - March 2003

-------
 1 "Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water," EPA/600/4-88/039, December
 1988.

 2 "Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water—Supplement III," EPA/600/R-
 95/131, August 1995.

 * The MDLs of the original methods for this contaminant ranged from 0.2 - 0.5 ng/L according to the July 1987
 Federal Register notice promulgating NPDWRs for the VOCs (52 FR 25690). However, the 1988 methods
 manual cited in footnote llists the MDLs shown above.

 * Multiple method detection limit (MDL) values result from variability of reagents, instrumentation and/or
 laboratory/analyst performance.

 * Regulatory DLs for organic compounds are listed at 40 CFR § 141.24(f)(17)(i).

 t Acceptance limits for vinyl chloride are listed at 40 CFR §141.24(f)(17)(i).	
Results of the Analysis of the WS Data


a.  Method Usage Over Time


    The distribution of methods used by EPA and State laboratories during WS studies 34 to 41
is plotted in Figure 45. The category of "other" contains those methods that were unknown or
unidentified by the participating laboratories.  As shown in Figure 45, over the course of the past
eight WS Studies, the use of EPA Method 524.2 has grown while the use of EPA Method 502.2
has decreased. EPA Method 524.2 has consistently remained the most commonly used method
for vinyl chloride determination.
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review      143                         Final - March 2003

-------
      Figure 45.  Distribution of Analytical Techniques by WS Study: Vinyl Chloride

                                        Vinyl Chloride
         100%

          90% -

          80% -

       "8  70% -}

       ^
       2  60% -\
       D)
       •5J  50% -}

       I  40% -

       SS  30% -

          20% -

          10% -

           0%
                WS34   WS35   WS36   WS 37   WS 38    WS 39   WS 40   WS 41

                                         Water Study
b. Results of the PQL Analysis
    The original PQL of 2 |ig/L for vinyl chloride was determined by using multi-laboratory
performance data, rather than the multiplier procedure used for other VOCs (52 FR 25700).  A
re-evaluation of the PQL was attempted using more recent PE data from WS 24 to 41.  Table 79
summarizes the results of these studies, providing the study number, the spiked value for the WS
sample, the number of laboratory results, and the percentage of laboratories passing the
performance evaluation within the + 40 percent acceptance limits (40 CFR § 141.24(f)(17)(ii)).
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
144
Final - March 2003

-------
Table 79.     Evaluation of Vinyl Chloride Data from WS Studies Using ± 40%
              Acceptance Limits (in Order of Increasing Concentration)
ws#
32
27
24
35
30
39
33
26
36
31
25
34
29
37
38
41
40
Spiked "True" Value (ng/L)
2.57
3.57
4.35
4.91
5.48
6.19
7.35
8.70
9.47
11.9
12.4
14.1
14.6
14.8
17.9
22.3
27.2
# Results from EPA and
State Labs
43
39
57
36
58
45
34
59
60
39
38
59
38
50
54
41
58
% Labs Passing ± 40%
Acceptance Limits
79.1
79.5
80.7
100
82.8
91.1
79.4
86.4
88.3
79.5
86.8
93.2
78.9
88.0
96.3
92.7
94.8
   EPA prefers to estimate the PQL by choosing the spiked value at which 75 percent of
laboratories can determine the concentration within the appropriate 40 percent acceptance
window. In the case of vinyl chloride, the results from participating laboratories listed in Table
79 could not be used to re-evaluate the PQL because the laboratory success rate exceeded this 75
percent criterion.  The other limitation of these data was the high range of spiked concentrations
exhibited during the WS studies, which exceeded the current PQL of 2 |ig/L. Therefore, the
available data do not provide sufficient data to recalculate the PQL.  However, passing rates of
79 to 81 percent for the three lowest concentrations (2.57, 3.57 and 4.35 |ig/L) above the  current
PQL of 2 |ag/L suggest that the current PQL is in the appropriate range and unlikely to change.
Conclusion for Vinyl Chloride
    As shown by the method comparison table, EPA Methods 502.2 and 524.2 were approved
with the Phase I Rule promulgation for VOCs and continue to be approved today. The
sensitivity of newer versions of the methods are comparable older versions. According to the
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
145
Final - March 2003

-------
plot of methods usage over time, the laboratories who participated in WS 34 to 41 employed
EPA Method 524.2 more frequently than EPA Method 502.2. The available PE data were
reviewed but did not provide sufficient data to recalculate the PQL.  Evaluation of the available
WS data suggest that the current PQL of 2 |ig/L vinyl chloride is unlikely to change.
Xylenes (total)
Results of the Method Comparison
    The NPDWR for total xylenes, a Phase IIVOC, approved four methods: EPA Methods
502.2, 503.1, 524.1, and 524.2.  Since this regulation was promulgated, EPA Methods 503.1 and
524.1 have been removed from the approved list, leaving EPA Methods 502.2 and 524.2 as the
only currently approved methods; no new methods have been introduced.  Table 80 provides
descriptions of the methods and their MDLs. The MDLs of the two current methods remain
essentially unchanged from their values at promulgation of the rule.
Table 80.     Analytical Methods Comparison for Xylenes (total)
MCL = 10 mg/L Current PQL = 5 jig/L DL* = 0.5 jig/L Acceptance Limit* = ± 20% (>10 jig/L) or
± 40% (<10 ng/L)
Methods Approved At Promulgation
Method
EPA502.21
EPA 503. 11
EPA 524. 11
EPA 524.21
Technique
Purge and Trap GC
Purge and Trap GC
Purge and Trap
GC/MS
Purge and Trap
GC/MS
MDL*
(Hg/L)
0.01 -0.02
0.002 - 0.004
0.2-0.3
0.03-0.13
Currently Approved Methods (141.24)
Method
EPA
502.22
EPA
524.22


Technique
Purge and Trap GC
Purge and Trap GC/MS


MDL*
(Hg/L)
0.01-0.02
0.03-0.13


1 "Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water," EPA/600/4-88/039, December
1988.
2 "Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water-- Supplement III," EPA/600/R-
95/131, August 1995.
* Multiple method detection limit (MDL) values result from variability of reagents, instrumentation, and/or
laboratory /analyst performance.
- Regulatory DLs for VOCs are listed at 40 CFR § 141.24(f)(17)(i).
t Acceptance limits for VOCs are listed at 40 CFR § 141.24(f)(17)(i).
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
146
Final - March 2003

-------
Results of the Analysis of the WS Data
a.  Method Usage Over Time
    The distribution of analytical methods used by participating laboratories from WS 34 to 41 is
shown in Figure 46. The results for "other" techniques in this figure include the use of any other
technique identified by the laboratories participating in the WS study, as well as "unknown"
methods, i.e., methods for which laboratories did not report the method used.  As Figure 46
shows, EPA Method 524.2 was the preferred method for laboratories participating in WS studies
34 to 41. The use of EPA Method 502.2 appears to decrease over time.
    Figure 46. Distribution of Analytical Techniques by WS Study: Xylenes (total)
                                      Xylenes (total)
        100%
               WS 34   WS 35   WS 36   WS 37   WS 38

                                         Water Study
                                                       WS39
                                                               WS40
                                                                       WS 41
b. Results of the PQL Analysis
    The Agency set the original PQL at 5 jig/L (52 FR 25700 and 56 FR 3526) for all VOCs
except vinyl chloride. Data from WS 24 through 41 were used to re-evaluate the PQL for total
xylenes. Table 81 summarizes the results of these WS studies providing the study number, the
spiked "true" value for the WS sample, the number of results from EPA and State laboratories,
and the percent of laboratories passing the WS proficiency test for total xylenes within specified
acceptance limits.  The acceptance limits for total xylenes are ± 20% for a true value greater
than 10 i-ig/L or ± 40% for a true value lower than 10 |ig/L (as specified at 40 CFR §
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
147
Final - March 2003

-------
Table 81.     Evaluation of Xylenes (total) Data from WS Studies Using Either 20% or 40%
              Acceptance Limits (in Order of Increasing Concentration)
ws#
32
27
36
33
29
25
37
34
31
24
30
35
38
39
40
41
Spiked "True"
Value (jig/L)
7.54
8.45
10.4
11.6
12.0
12.5
12.9
13.1
13.2
14.0
15.0
17.4
22.9
24.4
30.3
30.9
# Results from EPA
and State Labs
61
32
61
34
34
33
49
60
38
45
59
37
56
44
58
43
% Labs Passing ± 20%
Acceptance Limit


95.1
91.2
88.2
87.9
87.8
90.0
84.2
80.0
83.0
91.9
92.9
88.6
91.4
97.7
% Labs Passing ± 40%
Acceptance Limit
95.1
90.6














    A re-evaluation of the PQL could not be performed using the available PE data in Table 81.
All of the passing rates in Table 81 were well above the 75 percent criterion necessary to
recalculate the PQL.  High laboratory passing rates (greater than 90 percent) at concentrations
slightly above (i..e., ~ 7 and 8 |ig/L) the current PQL suggest that a lower PQL may exist.


Conclusion for Xylenes (total)


    Since the promulgation of the Phase II rule, no new methods have been approved for the
analysis of total xylenes,  and analytical capabilities have remained essentially constant. Of the
currently approved methods, EPA Method 524.2 is used more frequently by laboratories for the
detection of total xylenes (although it is not the most sensitive method available).  Evaluation of
WS studies 24 to 41 show that the percentage of laboratories passing are higher than the 75%
criterion typically used to develop a PQL. Also, all of the true values for the WS PE studies
were above the current PQL. At the lowest concentrations tested (~ 7 and 8 |ig/L), the laboratory
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
148
Final - March 2003

-------
passing rates were quite high (greater than 90 percent).  Although not definitive, high passing
rates at values slightly above the current PQL of 5 |ig/L suggest that a lower PQL may exist for
total xylenes.
VI.    Conclusion


   As part of the 1996-2002 Six-Year Review of National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations, EPA's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water re-evaluated the analytical
feasibility for 40 selected NPDWRs. Table 82 summarizes the results of the analytical feasibility
analysis. Upon review, EPA found that the majority of the available WS data were insufficient
for the recalculation of the PQL for many of the 40 contaminants of interest.  The data were
considered insufficient because either the true value of the spike concentrations used in the WS
studies were above the concentration of interest and/or the percentages of labs passing exceeded
the 75 percent criterion used to calculate a PQL. However, for many of the 40 contaminants, the
available data were sufficient to indicate whether the PQL might change or if the current PQL is
still appropriate. Of the 40 NPDWRs evaluated, the available information indicates that the PQL
for 25 may possibly be lower. The PQL for the remaining 15 appears to still be appropriate.


   For the 25 analytes where the WS data indicate that a lower PQL may exist, EPA used the
information about method usage over time, the MDLs for these methods, and the 10 x MDL
multiplier to estimate what the potentially lower PQL might be. These estimates are shown in
Appendix A.  Pending the outcome  of the health effects review, the majority of these estimated
values will be used as thresholds in  the occurrence and exposure analyses to determine whether
an improvement in public health protection might be possible if EPA were to consider gathering
more definitive data to recalculate the PQL and possibly lower the MCL.
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review      149                       Final - March 2003

-------
Table 82. Summary of Results from the Methods Comparison
and WS Analysis
SDWA Chemical
Contaminant
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Alachlor
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Beryllium
Bis (2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
(also known as Di(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate or DEHP)
Cadmium
Carbofuran
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlordane
Chromium (total - Cr III and VI)
1 ,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
(DBCP)
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene (para)
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethy lene
Dichloromethane (methylene
chloride)
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
Dioxin - 2,3,7,8-TCDD
Diquat
Ethylene dibromide
Fluoride
Glyphosate
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Mercury
Methoxychlor
Oxamyl
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
(as decachlorobiphenyl)
Current PQL (mg/L)1
(PQL at the time of the original
promulgation)
0.002
0.005
0.0002
0.001
0.006
0.002
0.007
0.005
0.002
0.01
0.0002
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
3xlO'8
0.004
0.00005
0.5
0.06
0.0004
0.0002
0.001
0.001
0.002
0.01
0.02
0.0005
Result of the Six- Year Analytical
Feasibility Reassessment
Current PQL still appropriate
WS Data indicative of change
Current PQL still appropriate
Current PQL still appropriate
Current PQL still appropriate
WS Data indicative of change
WS Data indicative of change
WS Data indicative of change
WS Data indicative of change
Current PQL still appropriate
WS Data indicative of change
WS Data indicative of change
WS Data indicative of change
WS Data indicative of change
WS Data indicative of change
WS Data indicative of change
PQL most likely still appropriate - no data but
unlikely to change since no new method
approved
Current PQL still appropriate
Current PQL still appropriate
Current PQL still appropriate
Current PQL still appropriate
WS Data indicative of change
WS Data indicative of change
WS Data indicative of change
WS Data indicative of change
Current PQL still appropriate
WS Data indicative of change
PQL could range from 0.02 to 0.04 mg/L
Current PQL still appropriate
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
150
Final - March 2003

-------
Table 82. Summary of Results from the Methods Comparison
and WS Analysis
SDWA Chemical
Contaminant
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Pentachlorophenol
Picloram
Tetrachloroethylene
Thallium
Toluene
Toxaphene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1 ,1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl chloride
Xylenes (total)
Current PQL (mg/L)1
(PQL at the time of the original
promulgation)
0.001
0.001
0.005
0.002
0.005
0.003
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.002
0.005
Result of the Six- Year Analytical
Feasibility Reassessment
Current PQL still appropriate
Current PQL still appropriate
WS Data indicative of change
WS Data indicative of change
WS Date indicative of change
WS Data indicative of change
WS Data indicative of change
WS Data indicative of change
WS Data indicative of change
Current PQL still appropriate
WS Data indicative of change
1 The PQL values were converted from ug/L to mg/L to allow for comparison of values in other support documents.
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
151
Final - March 2003

-------
References

USEPA.  1985. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Volatile Synthetic Organic
   Chemicals; Final Rule and Proposed Rule.  Federal Register.  Vol. 50, No. 219, p. 46880,
   November 13, 1985.

USEPA.  1987. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations - Synthetic Organic Chemicals;
   Monitoring for Unregulated Contaminants; Final Rule. Federal Register. Vol. 52, No. 130,
   p. 25690, July 8, 1987.

USEPA.  1989. National Primary and Secondary Drinking Water Regulations; Proposed Rule.
   Federal Register. Vol. 54, No. 97, p. 22062, May 22, 1989.

USEPA.  1991. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations - Synthetic Organic Chemicals
   and Inorganic Chemicals; Monitoring for Unregulated Contaminants; National Primary
   Drinking Water Regulations Implementation; National Secondary Drinking Water
   Regulations; Final Rule. Federal Register. Vol. 56, No. 30, p. 3526, January 30, 1991.

USEPA.  1996. Performance Evaluation Studies  Supporting Administration of the Clean Water
   Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act. Federal Register.  Vol. 61, No. 139,  p. 37464, July
   18, 1996.

USEPA.  1997. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Analytical Methods for
   Radionuclides; Final Rule and Proposed Rule. Federal Register. Vol. 62, No.  43, p. 10167,
   March 5, 1997.

USEPA.  1997. Performance Evaluation Studies  Supporting Administration of the Clean Water
   Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act. Federal Register.  Vol. 62, No. 113, p. 32112, June
   12, 1997.

USEPA.  1999. National Primary and Secondary Drinking Water Regulations: Analytical
   Methods for Chemical and Microbiological Contaminants and Revisions to Laboratory
   Certification Requirements; Final Rule. Federal Register. Vol. 64, No. 230, p. 67449,
   December 1,  1999.

USEPA.  200 la.  Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants Under
   the Clean Water Act; National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; and National Secondary
   Drinking Water Regulations; Methods Update; Proposed Rule. Federal Register.  Vol. 66, p.
   3526, January 16,2001.

USEPA.  200Ib.  National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Arsenic and Clarifications to
   Compliance and New Source Contaminants Monitoring; Final Rule. Federal Register. Vol.
   66, No. 14, p. 6976, January 22, 2001.
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review      152                       Final - March 2003

-------
Appendix A


    After re-evaluating more recent Water Supply data for the Six-Year Review, EPA found that
insufficient data were available around the 75 percent criterion to actually recalculate the PQL.
However, in many cases, the passing rates for the EPA Regional and State laboratories exceeded
the 75 percent at values close to the current PQL. If the passing rates were greater than 80 to 85
percent at spike concentrations close to the current PQL, then this information was considered to
be indicative of a possible change in the PQL. If data indicated a possible change in the PQL,
EPA then evaluated the distribution of the analytical methods used to analyze the spike samples
in the WS studies. Evaluation of the method usage over time allowed EPA to determine the
analytical methods that appear to be the most widely used for the analysis of a particular
contaminants. Knowledge of which analytical methods are the most widely used, along with the
MDL for these methods, and a ten times MDL multiplier allowed EPA to estimate where the
potential lower limit of quantitation may lie today.  These values are shown in Table 83. Most of
these estimated PQLs have or will be used as a threshold value in the occurrence and exposure
(O/E)1 analysis to help the Agency determine if there may be a meaningful opportunity for health
risk reduction if EPA were to consider gathering the information needed to recalculate  the PQL
(and therefore consider changes to the MCL).
       1 For those contaminants where occurrence is evaluated with respect to the revise/not revise decision, EPA
is using the Stage 2 occurrence analysis for the 16 State database to determine the percentage of PWSs that could be
impacted, and the percentage of the exposed population served by these systems. In making the revise/not revise
decision, EPA will consider the difference between levels of occurrence and exposure above the current MCL and
the occurrence and exposure at threshold levels of interest (e.g. potential MCLs and/or MCLGs).


Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review      A-1                        Final - March 2003

-------
Table 83. Estimated PQLs Based on Method Usage and 10 x MDL Multiplier
Estimated values to use in the Occurrence and Exposure (O/E) analyses
(units converted from fig/L to mg/L to allow for comparison of values in other support documents)
Chemical analyte
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Benzene
Cadmium
Carbofuran
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlordane
l,2-Dibromo-3-
chloropropane (DBCP)
1,4-Dichlorobenzene (para)
Current PQL1
(mg/L)
0.005
0.002
0.007
0.005
0.002
0.0002
0.005
Most commonly used methods with
published MDL (mg/L)
EPA 524.2
EPA 502.2
EPA 200.7
EPA 200. 8
EPA 200. 9
all used equally
EPA 531.1
EPA 524.2
EPA 502.2
EPA 505
EPA 508
EPA 504.1
EPA 502.2
EPA 524.2
0.00004 (upper MDL)
0.00001
0.001
0.0005
0.00005
0.00052
0.00021 (upper MDL)
0.00002 (upper MDL)
0.00014
0.0000041 (upper MDL)
0.00001
0.00004 (upper MDL)
0.00004 (upper MDL)
Estimated value for O/E
(mg/L)
0.0004
0.0001
Use upper value of 0.0004 mg/L
0.01
0.005
0.0005
If use upper or intermediate value -
these are higher than current MCL.
Could use 0.0005 mg/L as a value
for O/E but this would probably be
the lower edge of the quantitation
limit.
0.0052
Round to 0.005 mg/L
0.0021
0.0002
Use upper value of 0.0021 and since
this value is close to one-half MCL,
use 0.0025 mg/L.
0.0014
0.000041
Because there is an order of
magnitude difference between these
two values, use the average and
round up.
Average = 0.00072 mg/L
Round up to 0.001 mg/L
0.0001 mg/L
0.0004
0.0004
Use upper value of 0.0004 mg/L
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
A-2
Final - March 2003

-------
Chemical analyte
8



9



10




11


12






13






14



1 ,2-Dichloroethane



1 , 1 -Dichloroethy lene



Dichloromethane
(methylene chloride)



1 ,2-Dichloropropane


Heptachlor






Heptachlor epoxide






Hexachlorobenzene



Current PQL1
(mg/L)
0.005



0.005



0.005




0.005


0.0004






0.0002






0.001



Most commonly used methods with
published MDL (mg/L)
EPA 502.2
EPA 524.2


EPA 524.2
EPA 502.2


EPA 524.2
EPA 502.2



EPA 524.2
EPA 502.2

EPA 525.2
EPA 505
EPA 508




EPA 525.2
EPA 508
EPA 505




EPA 508
EPA 505
EPA 525.2

0.00003
0.00006 (upper MDL)


0.00012 (upper MDL)
0.00007 (upper MDL)


0.00009 (upper MDL)
0.00002 (upper MDL)



0.00004 (upper MDL)
0.00003 (upper MDL)

0.00015 (upper MDL)
0.000003
0.0000015




0.00013 (upper MDL)
0.0000059
0.000004




0.0000077
0.000002
0.00013 (upper MDL)

Estimated value for O/E
(mg/L)
0.0003
0.0006
Use upper value and round to 0.001
mg/L
0.0012
0.0007
Could use either both round to
0.001 mg/L
0.0009
0.0002
Used average for these two since
close to one-half MCL
Average = 0.00055 mg/L
0.0004
0.0003
Use upper value 0.0004 mg/L
0.0015
0.00003
0.000015
Because of widespread between
these - use the intermediate value
and round to 0.0001 mg/L to be
conservative
0.0013
0.000059
0.00004
Because of widespread between
these - use the intermediate value
and round to 0.0001 mg/L to be
conservative
0.000077
0.00002
0.0013
Average = 0.0005 mg/L
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
A-3
Final - March 2003

-------
Chemical analyte
15



16




17
18



19


20


21

22


Hexachlorocyclopentadien
e


Methoxychlor




Oxamyl
Tetrachloroethy lene



Thallium


Toluene


Toxaphene

1,1,1 -Trichloroethane


Current PQL1
(mg/L)
0.001



0.01




0.02
0.005



0.002


0.005


0.003

0.005


Most commonly used methods with
published MDL (mg/L)
EPA 508
EPA 505
EPA 525.2

EPA 505
EPA 525.2
EPA 508




EPA 524.2
EPA 502.2


EPA 200. 9
EPA 200. 8

EPA 502.2
EPA 524.2

EPA 508
EPA 505
EPA 524.2
EPA 502.2

N/A
0.00013
0.00016 (upper MDL)

0.00096
0.00013 (upper MDL)
0.000022




0.00014 (upper MDL)
0.00005 (upper MDL)


0.0007
0.0003

0.00002 (upper MDL)
0.00011 (upper MDL)

N/A (Not Available)
0.001
0.00008 (upper MDL)
0.00003 (upper MDL)

Estimated value for O/E
(mg/L)
	
0.0013 (rounds to 0.001)
0.0016
Use 0.001 mg/L
0.0096
0.0013
0.00022
Use intermediate value and round to
0.001 mg/L
PQL could range from 0.02 to 0.04
mg/L
0.0014
0.0005
In this case, used the lower value of
0.0005 mg/L because of the 95-100
% passing rates around the current
PQL.
0.007
0.003
These values higher than current
MCL, could not estimate using 10
multiplier.
0.0002
0.0011
Average = 0.00065 mg/L
	
0.01 (higher than current MCL)
0.0008
0.0003
Average = 0.0005 mg/L
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
A-4
Final - March 2003

-------
Chemical analyte
23



24


25


1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane



Trichloroethylene


Xylenes (total)


Current PQL1
(mg/L)
0.005



0.005


0.005


Most commonly used methods with
published MDL (mg/L)
EPA 524.2
EPA 502.2


EPA 502.2
EPA 524.2

EPA 502.2
EPA 524.2

0.0001 (upper MDL)
0.00004


0.00006 (upper MDL)
0.00019 (upper MDL)

0.00002 (upper MDL)
0.00013 (upper MDL)

Estimated value for O/E
(mg/L)
0.001
0.0004
Average = 0.0007 mg/L
Estimated value is lower than
MCLG of 0.003 mg/L. So should
use MCLG value as threshold in
O/E analysis.
0.0006
0.0019
Average = 0.00125 mg/L
0.0002
0.0013
Average = 0.00075 mg/L
1 PQL at the time of the original promulgation.
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
A-5
Final - March 2003

-------

-------
Appendix B


Water Supply Raw Data


Below are tables that contain the raw Water Supply (WS) data used to construct the Distribution
of Analytical Techniques figures and Evaluation of Data tables.
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review      B-1                       Final - March 2003

-------
Alachlor

Water Study: 24a
True Value: 0.735 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
507 0.690
505 0.703
507 0.732
507 0.763
Method Reported
Value
505 0.771
other 0.777
507 0.791
507 0.822
Method Reported
Value
505 0.824
507 0.829
other 0.860
other 0.879
Method Reported
Value
other 0.900
507 0.908
other 0.909
507 0.910
Method Reported
Value
other 0.913
505 0.945
other 0.980

Method Reported
Value




Water Study: 24b
True Value: 4.53 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
507 3.400
507 3.630
other 3.765
505 3.900
Method Reported
Value
507 4.030
505 4.060
507 4.160
507 4.170
Method Reported
Value
other 4.250
505 4.470
other 4.500
other 4.500
Method Reported
Value
505 4.540
507 4.610
507 4.610
other 4.730
Method Reported
Value
other 5.020
507 5.420
other 6.400

Method Reported
Value




Water Study: 25a
True Value: 1.87 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
other 1.479
other 1.560
507 1.560
Method Reported
Value
507 1.600
505 1.630
other 1.760
Method Reported
Value
507 1.800
507 1.860
505 1.860
Method Reported
Value
507 1.910
507 2.000
507 2.300
Method Reported
Value
other 2.590


Method Reported
Value



Water Study: 25b
True Value: 9.80 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
507 7.310
507 7.400
other 7.446
Method Reported
Value
507 7.670
505 8.520
507 9.460
Method Reported
Value
507 9.630
other 9.660
505 9.670
Method Reported
Value
other 10.200
22 10.300
507 11.000
Method Reported
Value
507 11.800


Method Reported
Value



Water Study: 26a
True Value: 5.66 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
507 4.400
505 4.550
505 4.870
507 5.140
Method Reported
Value
507 5.150
other 5.220
other 5.230
other 5.270
Method Reported
Value
other 5.300
507 5.400
507 5.500
505 5.560
Method Reported
Value
507 5.570
507 5.570
other 5.600
507 5.600
Method Reported
Value
507 5.890
505 7.130
other 7.350
507 42.500
Method Reported
Value




Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-2
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 26b
True Value: 0.933 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
507 0.588
other 0.600
507 0.730
505 0.779
Method Reported
Value
505 0.810
507 0.875
507 0.890
507 0.894
Method Reported
Value
other 0.900
507 0.910
other 0.921
507 0.939
Method Reported
Value
other 0.953
other 0.971
507 0.980
505 1.030
Method Reported
Value
other 1.130
507 1.200
505 1.210
507 7.000
Method Reported
Value




Water Study: 27
True Value: 3.8 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
other 1.900
505 2.060
507 3.000
Water Study: 29
True Value: 1.59 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
505 0.161
other 0.237
507 0.700
Water Study: 30
True Value: 3.21 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
505 2.130
507 2.260
other 2.301
other 2.310
other 2.400
505 2.480
507 2.500
Method Reported
Value
other 3.200
507 3.240
505 3.270
Method Reported
Value
other 1.310
507 1.400
507 1.420
Method Reported
Value
507 2.620
other 2.750
507 2.810
other 2.820
other 2.900
other 2.910
other 2.940
Method Reported
Value
507 3.370
other 3.490
507 3.500
Method Reported
Value
507 1.460
507 1.500
other 1.570
Method Reported
Value
other 2.950
507 3.000
other 3.050
other 3.050
507 3.050
505 3.060
507 3.110
Method Reported
Value
507 3.710
507 3.960
507 4.030
Method Reported
Value
507 1.690
507 1.750
507 1.860
Method Reported
Value
507 3.156
505 3.270
other 3.270
505 3.280
507 3.300
507 3.350
505 3.360
Method Reported
Value
507 4.080
other 4.160
other 4.160
Method Reported
Value
505 2.000
other 1310.000

Method Reported
Value
other 3.370
507 3.380
507 3.390
507 3.390
other 3.450
other 3.490
507 3.700
Method Reported
Value
507 4.300
other 4.610

Method Reported
Value



Method Reported
Value
507 3.760
other 3.890
505 4.410
other 4.500
other 5.590


Water Study: 31
True Value: 2.50 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
other 0.975
507 1.000
other 1.030
other 1.040
505 1.200
Method Reported
Value
507 1.260
507 1.740
other 1.870
505 2.170
507 2.200
Method Reported
Value
507 2.200
other 2.250
other 2.300
507 2.310
507 2.318
Method Reported
Value
other 2.420
507 2.470
507 2.510
507 2.570
507 2.650
Method Reported
Value
other 2.680
507 2.720
other 2.720
507 2.930
507 3.230
Method Reported
Value





Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 32
True Value: 2.33 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
507 0.0387
507 1.170
525.1 1.410
other 1.710
507 1.800
525.1 1.880
505 1.919
other 1.920
Method Reported
Value
other 1.960
other 2.030
507 2.040
505 2.050
507 2.060
other 2.078
525.1 2.080
other 2.100
Method Reported
Value
525.1 2.110
507 2.160
507 2.190
505 2.240
507 2.260
507 2.330
505 2.340
505 2.400
Method Reported
Value
525.1 2.410
507 2.420
505 2.430
507 2.470
other 2.520
507 2.600
other 2.600
505 2.670
Method Reported
Value
505 2.690
507 2.690
507 2.700
525.1 2.940
507 2.960
507 3.120
525.1 3.280
525.1 3.435
Method Reported
Value
505 3.860
505 5.800
other 9.430





Water Study: 33
True Value: 4.27 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
507 1.110
525.1 1.830
507 3.250
other 3.350
507 3.370
Water Study: 34
True Value: 3.43 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
507 1.910
507 2.090
505 2.230
507 2.280
525.1 2.510
other 2.580
507 2.650
507 2.750
Method Reported
Value
507 3.380
505 3.800
507 3.830
525.1 3.910
other 3.950
Method Reported
Value
505 2.759
525.2 2.820
505 2.880
505 2.890
other 2.900
507 2.910
507 3.100
525.1 3.110
Method Reported
Value
505 3.960
507 3.990
505 4.000
507 4.000
505 4.130
Method Reported
Value
505 3.140
other 3.140
525.1 3.210
507 3.220
507 3.250
507 3.260
other 3.260
525.1 3.310
Method Reported
Value
525.1 4.140
505 4.240
507 4.290
507 4.290
other 4.310
Method Reported
Value
505 3.460
505 3.490
507 3.510
505 3.520
507 3.560
525.1 3.560
525.1 3.560
505 3.596
Method Reported
Value
507 4.344
other 4.350
525.1 4.740
507 4.800
525.1 4.850
Method Reported
Value
505 3.600
525.1 3.630
507 3.640
507 3.650
507 3.652
525.1 3.670
507 3.670
507 3.690
Method Reported
Value
505 4.920
507 5.340
525.1 5.670
other 12.700
505 56.200
Method Reported
Value
505 3.700
505 3.810
507 3.896
525.1 3.910
525.1 4.000
525.1 4.010
507 4.020
507 4.160
Water Study: 35
True Value: 5.27 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
507 3.130
507 3.230
507 3.580
525.1 3.810
507 4.020
Method Reported
Value
507 4.120
525.2 4.430
505 4.490
507 4.860
507 4.870
Method Reported
Value
507 4.950
505 5.050
507 5.120
507 5.270
505 5.280
Method Reported
Value
525.1 5.410
525.1 5.430
507 5.460
507 5.550
507 5.600
Method Reported
Value
other 5.720
525.1 5.740
other 5.820
525.1 5.960
525.1 6.220
Method Reported
Value
507 7.350
505 10.000



Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-4
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 36
True Value: 7.34 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
505 4.840
507 4.890
525.2 5.160
507 5.370
507 5.590
other 5.600
other 5.660
525.2 5.710
other 6.040
Water Study: 37
True Value: 4.87 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
525.2 2.320
507 2.660
505 2.750
507 3.190
505 3.480
507 3.490
507 3.700
Method Reported
Value
507 6.060
507 6.310
other 6.380
507 6.390
507 6.490
507 6.490
507 6.550
507 6.580
other 6.620
Method Reported
Value
other 3.920
525.2 4.140
525.2 4.150
507 4.500
507 4.580
507 4.620
507 4.680
Method Reported
Value
507 6.650
505 6.710
508.1 6.710
525.2 6.750
505 6.790
507 6.960
525.2 6.960
505 7.020
other 7.060
Method Reported
Value
525.2 4.683
505 4.750
505 4.770
other 4.810
505 4.840
508.1 4.880
507 4.890
Method Reported
Value
507 7.135
525.2 7.190
525.2 7.200
525.2 7.210
507 7.230
525.2 7.310
525.2 7.330
507 7.410
507 7.430
Method Reported
Value
525.2 4.920
525.2 4.930
507 4.950
525.2 4.970
505 5.060
525.2 5.070
505 5.100
Method Reported
Value
505 7.490
505 7.610
525.2 7.620
507 7.790
525.2 7.840
507 7.860
525.2 8.060
507 8.190
other 8.110
Method Reported
Value
507 5.220
other 5.380
505 5.480
525.2 5.580
other 5.890
525.2 6.170
525.2 6.250
Method Reported
Value
505 8.200
507 8.510
507 9.040
508.1 9.750
525.1 10.300




Method Reported
Value
505 6.277
507 7.190
507 7.280
507 7.410
508.1 8.340


Water Study: 38
True Value: 9.52 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
505 2.470
525.2 4.670
507 5.110
505 5.370
507 5.580
507 6.150
507 6.830
525.2 7.220
other 7.500
Method Reported
Value
507 7.670
508.1 7.700
507 7.840
507 8.060
507 8.470
507 8.550
508.1 8.560
507 8.650
507 8.950
Method Reported
Value
507 8.960
505 9.010
507 9.080
507 9.150
507 9.150
507 9.220
525.2 9.230
505 9.320
507 9.500
Method Reported
Value
507 9.520
507 9.680
505 9.710
525.2 9.800
525.2 9.810
525.2 9.840
507 9.910
other 9.980
525.2 10.000
Method Reported
Value
525.2 10.000
507 10.100
507 10.100
525.2 10.120
525.2 10.200
505 10.290
507 10.670
525.2 10.700
507 10.800
Method Reported
Value
525.2 10.900
525.2 11.800
525.2 13.000
507 13.600





Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-5
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 39
True Value: 14.8 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
507 6.600
507 10.500
other 10.600
507 12.100
507 12.200
507 12.300
508.1 12.400
Water Study: 40
True Value: 17.7 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
507 0.480
508.1 2.260
507 8.620
508.1 8.680
507 9.020
507 10.000
other 10.900
507 12.500
507 12.700
Method Reported
Value
508.1 12.600
525.2 12.700
507 12.800
507 12.900
507 12.900
525.2 13.200
525.2 13.500
Method Reported
Value
507 12.900
507 13.400
525.2 13.700
507 14.000
505 14.500
507 14.900
508.1 14.900
507 15.400
508.1 15.600
Method Reported
Value
525.2 13.600
507 13.900
507 13.900
507 13.900
507 13.900
507 13.900
525.2 14.000
Method Reported
Value
507 16.000
525.2 16.600
507 16.800
507 16.900
505 16.900
525.2 17.100
507 17.400
505 17.400
507 17.800
Method Reported
Value
505 14.170
507 14.200
other 14.500
507 14.540
505 14.600
525.2 14.790
525.2 14.800
Method Reported
Value
507 17.800
507 18.000
507 18.200
525.2 18.300
505 18.400
525.2 18.400
525.2 18.430
525.2 18.500
507 18.700
Method Reported
Value
507 15.100
525.2 15.600
505 15.600
525.2 15.900
525.2 16.000
525.2 16.200
525.2 16.300
Method Reported
Value
525.2 18.700
525.2 18.700
507 18.800
525.2 18.900
525.2 19.100
507 19.200
507 19.200
525.2 19.400
other 19.700
Method Reported
Value
525.2 16.400
525.2 16.430
507 16.500
525.2 18.300
505 18.900


Method Reported
Value
507 19.800
507 20.290
525.2 22.000
525.2 23.300
525.2 24.100




Water Study: 41
True Value: 12.9 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
508.1 8.950
507 9.150
525.2 9.580
507 9.740
other 9.800
507 10.000
507 10.100
Method Reported
Value
507 10.300
507 10.300
525.2 11.100
508.1 11.300
507 11.500
505 12.000
other 12.000
Method Reported
Value
525.2 12.040
508.1 12.200
507 12.300
507 12.500
507 12.500
525.2 12.500
507 12.600
Method Reported
Value
525.2 12.700
505 12.700
525.2 12.800
505 13.000
505 13.200
505 13.500
other 13.600
Method Reported
Value
525.2 13.800
525.2 13.900
507 14.100
525.2 14.280
525.2 14.800
505 14.800
other 15.400
Method Reported
Value
507 15.800
525.2 15.900





Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-6
Final - March 2003

-------
Benzene
Water Study: 24
True Value: 4.32 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 2.600
524.1 3.340
502.2 3.420
502.2 3.640
503.1 3.710
502.2 3.780
502.2 3.800
524.1 3.830
524.2 3.870
502.1 3.890
Water Study: 25
True Value: 13.5 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 9.400
524.1 9.700
502.2 11.800
524.2 12.080
502.2 12.500
524.2 12.690
503.1 12.900
Method Reported
Value
524.2 3.890
502.2 3.920
524.1 4.000
524.2 4.008
502.2 4.012
524.2 4.050
502.2 4.070
503.1 4.100
502.2 4.100
524.2 4.100
Method Reported
Value
524.2 12.940
524.1 13.000
502.2 13.000
502.2 13.000
502.2 13.020
524.2 13.190
524.2 13.400
Method Reported
Value
524.2 4.110
524.1 4.133
524.2 4.140
524.2 4.200
502.2 4.200
524.2 4.210
502.2 4.220
524.2 4.267
502.2 4.300
524.2 4.300
Method Reported
Value
524.1 13.400
502.2 13.400
502.2 13.500
524.2 13.600
other 13.620
other 13.800
502.2 14.000
Method Reported
Value
524.2 4.320
524.2 4.350
524.2 4.390
502.2 4.400
502.1 4.440
other 4.480
524.1 4.570
524.2 4.580
524.1 4.590
502.2 4.590
Method Reported
Value
524.2 14.000
503.1 14.100
502.2 14.100
524.2 14.100
524.2 14.100
502.2 14.200
524.2 14.400
Method Reported
Value
other 4.600
502.2 4.650
502.2 4.660
524.2 4.660
524.2 4.690
524.2 4.700
other 4.700
524.2 4.730
524.2 4.800
502.2 4.890
Method Reported
Value
502.2 14.500
524.1 14.600
502.2 14.900
502.2 15.000
502.2 15.000
524.1 15.100
524.2 17.400
Method Reported
Value
502.2 4.890
503.1 4.930
524.2 4.940
502.2 4.960
502.2 5.200
503.1 5.250
other 6.700



Method Reported
Value
524.2 21.300
other 26.200





Water Study: 26
True Value: 10.3 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
503.1 7.170
524.1 8.970
502.2 9.140
502.2 9.190
502.2 9.200
503.1 9.240
other 9.300
503.1 9.350
524.2 9.360
502.2 9.550
Method Reported
Value
524.1 9.590
502.2 9.600
503.1 9.630
524.2 9.630
524.2 9.640
524.2 9.650
502.2 9.690
502.2 9.700
524.2 9.750
502.2 9.900
Method Reported
Value
524.1 10.100
502.2 10.100
502.2 10.100
502.2 10.100
524.2 10.170
502.2 10.200
502.2 10.200
524.2 10.200
502.2 10.200
502.2 10.200
Method Reported
Value
524.2 10.280
524.2 10.300
524.2 10.330
524.2 10.400
524.2 10.400
502.2 10.500
524.1 10.500
524.2 10.500
502.2 10.550
524.2 10.700
Method Reported
Value
524.2 10.700
524.2 10.800
524.2 10.900
502.2 11.000
524.2 11.000
503.1 11.100
524.2 11.200
502.2 11.520
524.2 11.600
502.2 11.700
Method Reported
Value
524.2 11.900
524.2 11.900
524.2 12.000
other 12.100
524.2 12.200
524.1 12.400
502.2 12.700
502.2 12.700
503.1 17.700

Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-7
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 27
True Value: 7.09 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 5.900
524.2 5.910
other 6.010
524.2 6.390
other 6.400
502.2 6.410
524.2 6.490
Method Reported
Value
502.2 6.520
524.2 6.570
502.2 6.600
502.2 6.660
502.2 6.660
502.2 6.670
524.2 6.780
Method Reported
Value
503.1 6.810
524.2 6.840
524.2 6.900
502.2 6.910
502.2 7.020
502.2 7.100
502.2 7.110
Method Reported
Value
502.2 7.140
524.2 7.160
524.2 7.200
502.2 7.210
524.2 7.310
502.2 7.400
502.2 7.550
Method Reported
Value
503.1 7.740
524.2 7.900
502.2 7.940
524.1 7.940
other 7.960
502.2 8.070
502.2 8.410
Method Reported
Value
524.2 8.470
524.2 8.590
524.1 9.930




Water Study: 29
True Value: 15.3 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 12.520
502.2 13.300
524.2 14.000
524.2 14.140
502.2 14.200
524.2 14.200
Method Reported
Value
524.2 14.300
524.2 14.700
524.2 14.900
524.2 14.900
502.2 15.100
524.2 15.100
Method Reported
Value
502.2 15.200
502.2 15.220
502.2 15.300
524.2 15.700
502.2 15.700
502.2 15.740
Method Reported
Value
524.1 15.900
524.2 15.980
502.2 16.000
524.1 16.400
502.2 16.400
524.2 16.400
Method Reported
Value
other 16.400
502.2 16.700
524.2 17.200
524.2 17.200
502.2 17.720
other 18.000
Method Reported
Value
other 18.300
502.2 19.300
524.2 16.500
502.2 21.600


Water Study: 30
True Value: 9.51 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
other 7.060
502.2 7.640
524.2 8.150
524.2 8.200
502.2 8.210
524.2 8.700
524.2 8.700
502.2 8.720
502.2 8.790
524.2 8.840
Method Reported
Value
524.2 8.880
502.2 8.920
502.2 8.960
502.2 8.990
524.2 9.000
502.2 9.050
502.2 9.070
524.2 9.100
502.1 9.170
524.2 9.200
Method Reported
Value
524.1 9.210
524.2 9.220
503.1 9.220
524.2 9.300
502.2 9.330
502.2 9.340
502.2 9.400
524.2 9.410
524.1 9.480
524.2 9.500
Method Reported
Value
524.2 9.560
524.2 9.580
524.2 9.660
524.2 9.680
502.2 9.700
524.2 9.700
524.2 9.740
502.2 9.770
524.2 9.800
524.2 9.880
Method Reported
Value
other 9.890
524.1 9.970
502.2 9.980
524.2 10.000
503.1 10.020
502.2 10.100
502.2 10.100
502.2 10.140
524.2 10.200
other 10.290
Method Reported
Value
524.2 10.300
524.2 10.300
524.2 10.400
502.2 10.500
502.2 10.580
502.2 10.600
502.2 10.700
502.2 10.700
502.2 10.800
other 12.800
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 31
True Value: 12.6 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 8.110
other 8.590
503.1 10.200
503.1 11.200
502.2 11.400
524.2 11.590
502.2 11.600
Method Reported
Value
503.1 11.700
524.2 11.710
524.2 11.900
502.2 11.900
524.2 11.900
502.2 11.970
524.2 12.000
Method Reported
Value
524.1 12.100
524.2 12.100
524.2 12.100
524.2 12.200
524.2 12.200
524.2 12.600
524.2 12.600
Method Reported
Value
502.2 12.700
502.2 12.900
502.2 12.900
502.2 12.900
502.2 13.000
524.2 13.100
502.2 13.300
Method Reported
Value
502.2 13.400
524.2 13.600
524.2 13.600
502.1 13.900
524.2 14.050
502.2 14.600
502.2 14.900
Method Reported
Value
502.2 15.300
502.2 19.100





Water Study: 32
True Value: 14.5 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 13.400
503.1 13.600
524.2 13.800
524.2 14.300
502.2 14.700
524.2 14.700
502.2 14.900
502.2 14.900
502.2 15.000
502.2 15.000
524.2 15.200
Method Reported
Value
502.2 15.300
502.2 15.300
524.2 15.400
524.2 15.400
503.1 15.400
524.2 15.600
524.2 15.700
524.2 15.840
524.2 16.000
524.2 16.000
524.2 16.100
Method Reported
Value
524.2 16.160
524.2 16.200
502.2 16.300
524.2 16.300
524.2 16.390
524.2 16.400
524.2 16.400
other 16.400
502.2 16.500
502.2 16.500
502.2 16.500
Method Reported
Value
524.2 16.500
524.2 16.600
524.2 16.800
524.2 16.800
524.2 16.840
524.2 16.900
502.2 17.000
other 17.000
502.2 17.100
502.2 17.200
524.1 17.200
Method Reported
Value
502.1 17.200
524.2 17.200
524.2 17.200
524.2 17.200
524.2 17.300
502.2 17.300
502.2 17.400
502.2 17.600
524.2 17.600
502.2 17.800
502.2 18.000
Method Reported
Value
502.2 18.100
502.2 18.300
502.2 18.500
502.2 18.700
503.1 18.900
524.2 19.300
other 20.000
524.2 20.000
524.2 20.500
502.2 20.900

Water Study: 33
True Value: 12.0 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
other 9.920
other 10.420
502.1 10.500
502.2 10.580
502.2 10.800
502.2 10.830
Method Reported
Value
524.1 11.100
524.2 11.100
524.2 11.300
524.2 11.380
524.2 11.440
524.2 11.500
Method Reported
Value
524.2 11.700
502.2 11.700
502.2 11.700
524.2 11.800
524.2 11.900
502.1 12.000
Method Reported
Value
502.2 12.000
502.2 12.200
502.2 12.200
502.2 12.200
502.2 12.300
502.2 12.400
Method Reported
Value
524.2 12.400
other 12.700
502.2 12.700
524.2 12.900
502.2 13.100
524.2 13.200
Method Reported
Value
502.2 13.400
524.2 13.800
524.2 14.400
524.2 14.800
502.2 30.300

Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-9
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 34
True Value: 4.94 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 3.600
502.2 3.850
524.2 4.150
502.2 4.230
502.2 4.290
502.2 4.320
502.2 4.356
524.2 4.420
503.1 4.430
524.2 4.440
Method Reported
Value
502.2 4.440
524.2 4.440
524.2 4.470
524.2 4.500
other 4.600
502.2 4.610
502.2 4.620
502.2 4.700
524.2 4.710
502.2 4.710
Method Reported
Value
502.2 4.720
502.2 4.750
524.2 4.750
524.2 4.830
524.2 4.840
502.2 4.850
524.2 4.870
524.2 4.900
524.2 4.900
524.2 4.900
Method Reported
Value
524.2 4.910
502.2 4.920
502.2 4.950
502.2 4.980
502.2 5.000
502.2 5.020
524.2 5.040
524.2 5.050
524.2 5.070
502.2 5.080
Method Reported
Value
524.2 5.100
502.2 5.110
524.2 5.120
524.2 5.120
524.2 5.130
502.2 5.140
502.2 5.150
524.2 5.170
other 5.200
502.2 5.250
Method Reported
Value
524.2 5.260
524.2 5.260
524.2 5.300
524.2 5.300
524.2 5.410
502.2 5.520
524.2 5.550
502.2 5.570
502.2 5.730
524.2 6.080
Water Study: 35
True Value: 14.0 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 11.500
524.2 12.000
502.2 12.200
524.2 12.400
524.2 12.900
524.2 13.000
Method Reported
Value
502.2 13.040
524.2 13.100
524.2 13.170
524.2 13.300
502.2 13.300
502.2 13.500
Method Reported
Value
502.2 13.600
502.2 13.600
524.2 13.700
502.2 13.700
other 13.740
502.2 13.900
Method Reported
Value
524.2 13.900
524.2 13.900
524.2 14.000
524.2 14.200
502.2 14.300
524.2 14.700
Method Reported
Value
524.2 14.700
502.2 14.710
502.2 14.960
524.2 15.400
502.2 15.500
other 15.600
Method Reported
Value
524.2 15.600
524.2 16.170
502.2 16.300
502.2 17.000


Water Study: 36
True Value: 7.49 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 5.900
502.2 6.000
524.2 6.300
524.2 6.640
502.2 6.730
502.2 6.730
524.2 6.850
502.2 6.860
524.2 6.880
524.2 6.890
524.2 6.900
Method Reported
Value
524.2 6.920
524.2 6.930
524.2 7.000
502.2 7.000
502.2 7.030
524.2 7.030
524.2 7.040
524.2 7.050
502.2 7.060
502.2 7.070
502.2 7.120
Method Reported
Value
524.2 7.140
524.2 7.160
524.2 7.190
524.2 7.200
524.2 7.210
other 7.220
524.2 7.290
524.2 7.300
502.2 7.300
502.2 7.310
502.2 7.320
Method Reported
Value
other 7.340
524.2 7.360
524.2 7.370
502.2 7.400
524.2 7.420
524.2 7.420
502.2 7.460
524.2 7.510
524.2 7.530
524.2 7.560
524.2 7.600
Method Reported
Value
524 7.630
502.2 7.660
524.2 7.670
other 7.750
524.2 7.810
502.2 7.940
524.2 7.970
502.2 8.140
524.2 8.350
502.2 8.400
502.2 8.440
Method Reported
Value
other 8.500
524.2 8.590
524.2 8.670
502.2 8.680
524.2 8.700
other 8.930





Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-10
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 37
True Value: 12.5 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 10.970
524.2 11.200
524.2 11.300
502.2 11.400
502.2 11.500
524.2 11.600
502.2 11.800
524.2 11.900
Method Reported
Value
524.2 11.900
524.2 12.000
502.2 12.000
other 12.100
524.2 12.100
502.2 12.200
524.2 12.200
524.2 12.250
Method Reported
Value
502.2 12.300
524.2 12.300
524.2 12.370
502.2 12.400
502.2 12.400
524.2 12.400
502.2 12.500
524.2 12.500
Method Reported
Value
524.2 12.600
502.2 12.600
502.2 12.700
other 12.800
502.2 12.800
524.2 13.000
502.2 13.100
524.2 13.100
Method Reported
Value
524.2 13.100
524.2 13.200
524.2 13.400
524.2 13.400
524.2 13.400
524.2 13.430
524.2 13.800
502.2 13.800
Method Reported
Value
502.2 13.900
502.2 14.000
other 14.300
524.2 14.500
502.2 14.500
524.2 16.800
524.2 16.900
524.2 24.800
Water Study: 38
True Value: 15.3 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 12.500
524.2 13.100
524.2 13.300
524.2 13.500
502.2 14.000
524.2 14.000
524.2 14.100
524.2 14.140
524.2 14.200
502.2 14.300
Method Reported
Value
524.2 14.500
524.2 14.500
502.2 14.500
524.2 14.500
524.2 14.600
other 14.600
other 14.800
524.2 14.900
524.2 14.900
502.2 14.950
Method Reported
Value
502.2 15.000
other 15.000
524.2 15.000
524.2 15.000
524.2 15.100
524.2 15.100
524.2 15.400
524.2 15.400
502.2 15.400
524.2 15.600
Method Reported
Value
502.2 15.600
524.2 15.600
502.2 15.600
502.2 15.700
502.2 15.800
502.2 15.900
524.2 15.900
524.2 16.000
524.2 16.100
524.2 16.130
Method Reported
Value
502.2 16.200
524.2 16.200
524.2 16.200
524.2 16.300
524.2 16.300
502.2 16.400
502.2 16.600
502.2 16.600
524.2 16.600
502.2 16.600
Method Reported
Value
524.2 16.800
524.2 17.100
502.2 17.100
524.2 18.800
524.2 20.800





Water Study: 39
True Value: 9.39 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 7.600
524.2 8.250
524.2 8.300
502.2 8.330
502.2 8.450
524.2 8.540
other 8.830
524.2 8.840
Method Reported
Value
524.2 8.900
502.2 9.000
502.2 9.060
524.2 9.100
502.2 9.130
524.2 9.150
502.2 9.180
524.2 9.280
Method Reported
Value
524.2 9.290
524.2 9.300
524.2 9.320
502.2 9.330
524.2 9.390
524.2 9.400
524.2 9.400
502.2 9.440
Method Reported
Value
502.2 9.640
502.2 9.650
524.2 9.730
502.2 9.740
524.2 9.750
502.2 9.820
524.2 9.980
502.2 10.100
Method Reported
Value
524.2 10.100
524.2 10.200
524.2 10.300
524.2 10.400
524.2 10.400
524.2 10.530
524.2 10.600
524.2 11.000
Method Reported
Value
524.2 11.400
524.2 12.400
524.2 16.990





Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-ll
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 40
True Value: 16.7 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 9.100
524.2 13.400
524.2 14.000
524.2 14.000
502.2 14.300
524.2 14.900
524.2 15.100
524.2 15.100
524.2 15.300
other 15.400
Method Reported
Value
524.2 15.400
524.2 15.500
524.2 15.800
524.2 15.800
524.2 16.000
502.2 16.100
524.2 16.100
502.2 16.200
524.2 16.200
524.2 16.300
Method Reported
Value
524.2 16.300
524.2 16.300
502.2 16.300
524.2 16.400
524.2 16.400
524.2 16.430
524.2 16.500
524.2 16.500
524.2 16.600
524.2 16.600
Method Reported
Value
524.2 16.600
524.2 16.700
524.2 16.700
502.2 16.800
other 16.800
524.2 16.800
502.2 16.800
502.2 16.800
524.2 16.900
502.2 17.000
Method Reported
Value
502.2 17.200
502.2 17.300
502.2 17.400
524.2 17.400
524.2 17.500
524.2 17.600
524.2 17.700
524.2 17.900
502.2 17.900
502.2 18.100
Method Reported
Value
524.2 18.400
524.2 18.500
524.2 18.600
502.2 18.700
502.2 18.700
other 19.500
524.2 20.000
524.2 20.300


Water Study: 41
True Value: 18.7 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 16.040
502.2 16.300
502.2 16.500
524.2 16.600
524.2 16.600
524.2 16.800
524.2 16.900
Method Reported
Value
502.2 17.000
524.2 17.000
524.2 17.100
524.2 17.100
502.2 17.100
524.2 17.300
524.2 17.300
Method Reported
Value
524.2 17.400
502.2 17.500
524.2 17.600
524.2 17.700
502.2 17.900
other 17.900
524.2 17.900
Method Reported
Value
502.2 18.000
other 18.000
524.2 18.000
524.2 18.100
524.2 18.200
502.2 18.200
524.2 18.300
Method Reported
Value
524.2 18.300
502.2 18.300
524.2 18.400
524.2 18.400
524.2 18.500
524.2 18.600
524.2 18.700
Method Reported
Value
524.2 18.700
524.2 19.000
502.2 19.400
502.2 19.700
524.2 19.800
502.2 20.300

 Benzo(a)pyrene

 Water Study: 26a
 True Value: 2.25 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
other 0.690
525 0.810
Method Reported
Value
525 1.150
other 1.260
Method Reported
Value
other 1.790
525 1.840
Method Reported
Value
525 1.840
525 1.960
Method Reported
Value
550 2.000
525 3.920
Method Reported
Value


Water Study: 26b
True Value: 15.5 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
other 10.500
525 11.800
Method Reported
Value
525 13.200
other 14.000
Method Reported
Value
525 14.000
other 14.900
Method Reported
Value
550 15.000
525 15.300
Method Reported
Value
525 16.310
525 18.900
Method Reported
Value
other 30.400
525 76.000
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-12
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 30
True Value: 0.485 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
525 0.190
550.1 0.200
Method Reported
Value
550 0.200
525 0.280
Method Reported
Value
550 0.280
525 0.328
Method Reported
Value
525 0.340
525 0.355
Method Reported
Value
other 0.371
525 0.405
Method Reported
Value
550 0.630
550 0.749
Water Study: 31
True Value: 0.202 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
550.1 0.100
525.1 0.160
550 0.166
Method Reported
Value
other 0.180
525.1 0.182
550.1 0.182
Method Reported
Value
550 0.209
550.1 0.219
525.1 0.220
Method Reported
Value
550.1 0.231
550 0.250
other 0.380
Method Reported
Value
525.1 0.690
550 1.310

Method Reported
Value



Water Study: 32
True Value: 0.337 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
550.1 0.015
525.1 0.162
550.1 0.167
550 0.197
525.1 0.204
Method Reported
Value
525.1 0.210
525.1 0.214
525.1 0.220
other 0.220
550 0.220
Method Reported
Value
525.1 0.228
550 0.238
550 0.260
525.1 0.264
525.1 0.272
Method Reported
Value
525.1 0.280
550 0.291
525.1 0.304
550 0.310
525.1 0.322
Method Reported
Value
other 0.325
525.1 0.342
other 0.353
other 0.360
550 0.367
Method Reported
Value
525.1 0.370
550.1 0.414
525.1 0.450
550 1.380

Water Study: 33
True Value: 1.29 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
525.1 0.200
525.1 0.300
525.1 0.394
525.1 0.620
Method Reported
Value
525.1 0.688
525.1 0.690
550.1 0.690
525.1 0.851
Method Reported
Value
other 0.930
525.1 0.930
other 1.020
525.1 1.070
Method Reported
Value
550 1.083
550.1 1.090
525.1 1.110
550.1 1.220
Method Reported
Value
525.1 1.310
550.1 1.350
550.1 1.370
550.1 1.580
Method Reported
Value
other 1.800
other 9.710


Water Study: 34
True Value: 0.751 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
525.1 0.090
525.1 0.261
550 0.356
525.1 0.416
550.1 0.426
Method Reported
Value
525.1 0.442
525.1 0.478
525.1 0.478
525.1 0.560
550.1 0.566
Method Reported
Value
other 0.570
550 0.577
525.1 0.615
525.1 0.620
550.1 0.637
Method Reported
Value
525.1 0.639
525.1 0.656
525.1 0.678
550.1 0.701
other 0.728
Method Reported
Value
550 0.760
550 0.778
other 0.796
525.1 0.820
525.1 0.870
Method Reported
Value
525.1 0.870
550.1 0.990
550 1.524


Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-13
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 35
True Value: 1.53 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
525.1 0.200
525.1 0.290
550 0.407
525.1 0.556
550 0.611
Method Reported
Value
550.1 0.642
525.1 0.661
525.1 0.711
550.1 1.020
525.1 1.100
Method Reported
Value
525.1 1.120
550.1 1.120
525.1 1.200
550 1.201
525.1 1.220
Method Reported
Value
550 1.390
550.1 1.402
525.1 1.415
550 1.460
525.1 1.470
Method Reported
Value
550.1 1.490
525.1 1.500
525.1 1.522
other 1.530
other 1.600
Method Reported
Value
other 1.640
other 2.400



Water Study: 36
True Value: 0.636 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
525.2 0.040
525.2 0.162
other 0.190
550.1 0.207
other 0.313
525.1 0.320
525.2 0.338
Method Reported
Value
525.1 0.358
525.2 0.360
550.1 0.370
other 0.380
525.2 0.418
525.1 0.423
550.1 0.427
Method Reported
Value
550.1 0.440
525.2 0.460
525.2 0.462
550 0.468
550 0.493
550.1 0.495
550 0.497
Method Reported
Value
other 0.500
550.1 0.505
525.2 0.524
525.2 0.526
525.2 0.530
other 0.534
525.2 0.540
Method Reported
Value
550 0.546
other 0.547
525.2 0.550
525.2 0.566
550.1 0.566
550 0.590
525.2 0.624
Method Reported
Value
525.2 0.626
525.2 0.640
550.1 0.659
525.2 0.919
550.1 514.000


Water Study: 37
True Value: 0.937 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
550.1 0.084
550.1 0.172
525.2 0.215
525.1 0.243
other 0.429
550 0.478
550.1 0.504
Method Reported
Value
525.2 0.505
525.2 0.506
525.2 0.510
550.1 0.536
525.2 0.552
550 0.566
other 0.572
Method Reported
Value
550.1 0.636
525.2 0.638
525.2 0.663
550.1 0.672
550.1 0.682
550 0.698
525.2 0.728
Method Reported
Value
525.2 0.732
525.2 0.734
525.2 0.740
525.2 0.762
525.2 0.768
525.2 0.790
525.2 0.790
Method Reported
Value
550 0.807
other 0.826
525.2 0.860
other 0.875
525.2 0.910
525.2 0.910
550 0.990
Method Reported
Value
525.2 1.290
525.2 1.320





Water Study: 38
True Value: 0.527 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
550.1 0.045
525.2 0.119
525.2 0.158
550 0.168
525.2 0.233
525.2 0.290
525.2 0.310
Method Reported
Value
525.2 0.350
550.1 0.355
525.1 0.360
525.2 0.370
550 0.378
550.1 0.380
525.2 0.382
Method Reported
Value
525.2 0.388
525.2 0.393
525.2 0.406
550 0.412
525.2 0.422
525.2 0.428
other 0.462
Method Reported
Value
525.2 0.480
550.1 0.480
525.2 0.484
other 0.493
525.2 0.510
550 0.522
525.2 0.530
Method Reported
Value
550 0.536
525.2 0.541
other 0.541
525.2 0.548
550.1 0.550
550 0.550
525.2 0.636
Method Reported
Value
525.2 0.648
550 0.716
550.1 4.490




Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-14
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 39
True Value: 2.37 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
525.2 0.240
550.1 0.750
550.1 1.190
525.2 1.240
550.1 1.330
525.2 1.600
Method Reported
Value
525.2 1.617
550 1.650
525.2 1.700
525.2 1.920
550.1 1.970
525.2 1.980
Method Reported
Value
525.2 1.990
525.2 2.010
525.2 2.020
550 2.060
525.2 2.070
550 2.090
Method Reported
Value
525.2 2.120
550.1 2.140
550 2.220
525.2 2.270
525.2 2.310
525.2 2.320
Method Reported
Value
550.1 2.390
525.2 2.420
525.2 2.460
525.2 2.510
525.2 2.550
525.2 2.660
Method Reported
Value
525.2 2.800





Water Study: 40
True Value: 1.48 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
other 0.480
525.2 0.550
550.1 0.614
525.2 0.710
550 0.724
525.2 0.779
other 0.790
550.1 0.800
Method Reported
Value
550 0.899
550.1 0.912
550 0.941
550.1 0.951
525.2 0.960
525.2 0.970
525.2 0.999
550.1 1.000
Method Reported
Value
550 1.010
525.2 1.130
525.2 1.170
other 1.180
525.2 1.190
525.2 1.200
525.2 1.210
525.2 1.220
Method Reported
Value
525.2 1.220
550.1 1.280
550 1.280
550.1 1.280
525.2 1.320
525.2 1.320
525.2 1.340
525.2 1.350
Method Reported
Value
525.2 1.370
550 1.400
525.2 1.440
525.2 1.440
550.1 1.470
525.2 1.490
550.1 1.490
550 1.500
Method Reported
Value
525.2 1.520
525.2 1.732
525.2 5.700





Water Study: 41
True Value: 2.37 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
550.1 0.190
other 0.660
550.1 0.990
550.1 1.140
525.2 1.320
Method Reported
Value
525.2 1.340
525.2 1.350
550 1.490
550 1.600
525.2 1.610
Method Reported
Value
550 1.620
525.2 1.640
525.2 1.650
550.1 1.670
525.2 1.700
Method Reported
Value
525.2 1.860
525.2 1.880
525.2 1.940
525.2 2.000
525.2 2.140
Method Reported
Value
525.2 2.270
525.2 2.400
525.2 2.400
other 2.660
525.2 6.270
Method Reported
Value





Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-15
Final - March 2003

-------
 Beryllium

 Water Study: 24
 True Value: 0.600 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
200.7A 0.490
210.2 0.500
210.2 0.520
210.2 0.540
210.2 0.540
210.2 0.560
Method Reported
Value
200.7A 0.560
210.2 0.590
210.2 0.591
200.7A 0.600
200.7A 0.600
210.1 0.600
Method Reported
Value
210.1 0.600
210.2 0.600
200.7A 0.600
other 0.604
210.2 0.610
210.2 0.610
Method Reported
Value
210.2 0.615
210.2 0.620
210.2 0.643
210.2 0.650
210.1 0.650
other 0.660
Method Reported
Value
210.2 0.660
210.1 0.675
210.2 0.690
210.2 0.699
210.1 0.700
200. 7A 0.700
Method Reported
Value
210.2 0.700
200. 7A 0.800
210.2 0.800
200. 7A 1.000
other 1.000

Water Study: 25a
True Value: 2.00 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
200.7A 1.360
200.7A 1.590
200.7A 1.900
200.7A 1.900
Method Reported
Value
200.7A 1.900
210.1 1.950
200.7A 1.950
210.2 1.980
Method Reported
Value
200.7A 2.000
other 2.000
200.7A 2.000
210.2 2.000
Method Reported
Value
200.7A 2.000
210.2 2.000
210.2 2.000
210.1 2.040
Method Reported
Value
210.2 2.050
other 2.060
210.2 2.100
210.2 2.100
Method Reported
Value
210.2 2.130
210.2 2.140
210.2 2.160
210.2 2.200
Water Study: 25b
True Value: 0.400 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
200.7A 0.300
210.2 0.300
200.7A 0.300
210.2 0.330
Method Reported
Value
210.1 0.346
210.2 0.370
210.2 0.374
210.2 0.379
Method Reported
Value
other 0.380
200.7A 0.390
200.7A 0.400
210.2 0.400
Method Reported
Value
210.2 0.400
200.7A 0.410
210.2 0.416
210.2 0.440
Method Reported
Value
other 0.440
210.1 0.446
200. 7A 0.500
210.2 0.500
Method Reported
Value




Water Study: 26a
True Value: 0.530 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
200.7A 0.400
200.7A 0.430
210.2 0.440
210.2 0.480
210.2 0.480
210.2 0.490
200.7A 0.490
Method Reported
Value
210.2 0.500
200.7A 0.500
200.7A 0.500
200.7A 0.500
200.7A 0.500
200.7A 0.500
200.7A 0.516
Method Reported
Value
210.2 0.520
210.2 0.523
210.2 0.529
210.2 0.530
200.7A 0.530
200.7A 0.550
210.2 0.550
Method Reported
Value
210.2 0.552
210.2 0.560
210.2 0.560
200.7A 0.560
200.7A 0.569
210.2 0.588
210.2 0.600
Method Reported
Value
other 0.600
210.2 0.600
210.2 0.610
210.2 0.620
210.2 0.636
210.2 0.638
210.2 0.660
Method Reported
Value
210.2 0.675
210.2 0.765
200.7A 0.800
210.2 0.950
210.2 7.600


Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-16
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 26b
True Value: 23.1 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
210.2 2.000
200.7A 13.000
210.2 13.700
210.2 18.700
other 19.100
210.2 19.900
200.7A 20.000
210.2 20.000
Method Reported
Value
200.7A 20.200
200.7A 20.800
200.7A 21.000
200.7A 21.200
210.2 21.200
210.2 21.400
other 21.400
200.7A 21.500
Method Reported
Value
210.2 21.700
200.7A 21.700
210.2 21.800
210.2 21.800
210.2 21.900
200.7A 22.000
210.2 22.000
other 22.000
Method Reported
Value
200.7A 22.000
210.2 22.300
210.2 22.300
210.2 22.380
other 22.400
200.7A 22.400
200.7A 22.400
210.2 22.600
Method Reported
Value
210.2 22.800
200.7A 22.800
210.2 22.900
200.7A 23.000
200. 7A 23.600
200.7A 23.600
210.2 24.000
210.2 24.400
Method Reported
Value
200.7A 24.700
210.2 24.700
210.2 24.800
210.2 26.000
210.2 27.400
210.2 30.000


Water Study: 27
True Value: 4.67 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
304 2.610
210.2 3.400
200.7A 3.790
200.7A 3.930
Method Reported
Value
other 4.000
other 4.200
200.7A 4.400
200.7A 4.400
Method Reported
Value
200.7A 4.410
200.7A 4.500
200.7A 4.550
other 4.600
Method Reported
Value
210.2 4.610
210.2 4.700
200.7A 4.820
210.2 4.860
Method Reported
Value
200. 7A 4.900
210.2 4.920
210.2 4.980
other 5.000
Method Reported
Value
200.8 5.150
210.2 5.370
210.2 5.500
210.2 7.840
Water Study: 29
True Value: 9.76 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
210.2 7.700
210.2 8.050
200.7A 8.120
210.2 8.220
other 8.900
Method Reported
Value
other 9.000
other 9.000
210.2 9.080
200.7A 9.300
200.7A 9.300
Method Reported
Value
other 9.300
210.2 9.400
200.7A 9.480
200.7A 9.500
210.2 9.600
Method Reported
Value
210.2 9.920
200.7A 9.970
200.7A 10.000
200.7A 10.000
other 10.000
Method Reported
Value
200.7A 10.200
210.2 10.300
210.2 10.900
210.2 11.100
210.2 12.500
Method Reported
Value





Water Study: 30
True Value: 8.47 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
210.2 4.720
200.7 6.000
200.9 7.050
200.7 7.120
210.2 7.200
210.2 7.310
200.7 7.400
200.9 7.600
200.7 7.680
Method Reported
Value
200.7 7.690
200.7 7.700
210.2 7.700
200.7 7.760
210.2 7.800
200.7 7.900
200.9 7.900
210.2 7.900
210.2 7.920
Method Reported
Value
other 8.000
200.7 8.000
210.2 8.060
210.2 8.070
200.7 8.100
210.2 8.165
200.7 8.200
200.8 8.200
200.7 8.210
Method Reported
Value
200.7 8.250
200.7 8.270
200.7 8.300
200.7 8.300
210.2 8.400
210.2 8.400
200.9 8.400
210.2 8.450
200.7 8.500
Method Reported
Value
210.2 8.500
other 8.500
200.7 8.600
210.2 8.670
200.7 8.700
210.2 8.800
210.2 8.800
200.7 8.920
210.2 9.100
Method Reported
Value
210.2 9.200
210.2 9.200
210.2 9.690
210.2 9.700





Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-17
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 31
True Value: 3.27 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
200.7 2.450
210.2 2.920
200.7 2.940
200.9 2.950
200.7 2.990
210.2 3.000
Method Reported
Value
200.7 3.030
210.2 3.030
210.2 3.050
210.2 3.100
200.7 3.100
200.7 3.190
Method Reported
Value
210.2 3.200
other 3.200
200.7 3.200
210.2 3.200
200.7 3.200
200.7 3.200
Method Reported
Value
210.2 3.210
200.9 3.250
210.2 3.270
200.9 3.280
200.7 3.300
200.7 3.300
Method Reported
Value
200.7 3.300
200.7 3.300
210.2 3.322
200.7 3.370
210.2 3.400
200.9 3.400
Method Reported
Value
200.7 3.450
200.9 3.500
210.2 3.900



Water Study: 32
True Value: 0.933 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
other 0.570
other 0.750
200.7 0.761
210.2 0.770
210.2 0.798
200.9 0.800
200.7 0.800
200.7 0.820
210.2 0.829
other 0.835
Method Reported
Value
200.9 0.849
210.2 0.850
210.2 0.851
210.2 0.870
200.9 0.870
200.7 0.890
210.2 0.890
200.7 0.890
200.7 0.900
200.7 0.900
Method Reported
Value
200.7 0.900
200.7 0.918
200.7 0.920
200.9 0.920
200.8 0.924
210.2 0.930
200.9 0.930
210.2 0.935
210.2 0.940
210.2 0.941
Method Reported
Value
210.2 0.9500
200.7 0.950
210.2 0.953
200.9 0.955
210.2 0.960
200.8 0.960
210.2 0.970
210.2 0.970
210.2 0.973
200.9 0.979
Method Reported
Value
210.2 0.997
210.2 1.000
210.2 1.000
200.7 1.020
210.2 1.020
200.9 1.040
210.2 1.050
200.7 1.060
200.7 1.090
210.2 1.100
Method Reported
Value
200.7 1.140
200.9 1.156
200.7 1.180
200.7 1.300
200.7 1.700
200.7 1.930
210.2 2.200
200.9 9.000
200.7 9.980
200.7 92.300
Water Study: 33
True Value: 9.07 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
200.9 5.780
200.7 7.000
210.2 7.400
200.9 7.400
200.8 7.520
210.2 7.750
other 7.790
Method Reported
Value
200.7 7.880
200.7 7.950
200.7 8.000
210.2 8.100
210.2 8.100
200.7 8.100
210.2 8.400
Method Reported
Value
200.7 8.400
other 8.400
210.2 8.440
200.9 8.450
200.7 8.530
200.7 8.570
200.7 8.580
Method Reported
Value
200.9 8.640
200.7 8.690
200.7 8.700
210.2 8.700
200.7 8.740
200.7 8.900
210.2 8.900
Method Reported
Value
200.7 8.990
200.9 9.000
210.2 9.000
200.9 9.150
200.9 9.270
200.7 9.350
200.7 9.410
Method Reported
Value
210.2 9.500
210.2 9.630
210.2 9.675
210.2 9.700
210.2 14.690


Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-18
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 34
True Value: 5.33 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
200.9 3.680
200.7 3.920
210.2 4.200
200.7 4.310
200.8 4.410
other 4.600
200.8 4.680
210.2 4.720
200.7 4.730
210.2 4.850
Method Reported
Value
210.2 4.850
200.7 4.860
200.9 4.880
200.7 4.900
200.7 4.900
200.7 4.900
210.2 4.920
200.9 4.930
200.7 4.940
200.7 4.970
Method Reported
Value
200.9 5.000
210.2 5.000
other 5.000
200.9 5.000
200.7 5.010
200.7 5.020
200.7 5.040
210.2 5.060
210.2 5.090
200.7 5.100
Method Reported
Value
200.7 5.100
200.7 5.100
210.2 5.100
210.2 5.100
200.7 5.100
other 5.100
210.2 5.100
200.7 5.103
200.7 5.120
200.9 5.130
Method Reported
Value
210.2 5.170
210.2 5.190
200.7 5.190
200.7 5.200
210.2 5.200
200.8 5.200
210.2 5.200
200.7 5.200
200.8 5.213
200.7 5.260
Method Reported
Value
210.2 5.270
200.9 5.270
210.2 5.300
200.7 5.330
other 5.330
200.9 5.400
210.2 5.410
210.2 5.420
200.7 5.480
200.7 10.200
Water Study: 35
True Value: 1.33 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
200.8 1.000
200.9 1.040
200.9 1.100
210.2 1.140
200.9 1.200
210.2 1.200
200.7 1.200
Method Reported
Value
210.2 1.210
210.2 1.210
200.9 1.240
210.2 1.250
200.7 1.260
210.2 1.270
210.2 1.280
Method Reported
Value
200.7 1.290
200.9 1.290
200.7 1.300
200.7 1.300
200.7 1.300
200.7 1.300
200.7 1.300
Method Reported
Value
200.9 1.310
210.2 1.310
210.2 1.310
210.2 1.340
200.8 1.350
200.7 1.350
200.7 1.370
Method Reported
Value
200.7 1.390
200.9 1.400
210.2 1.420
200.9 1.430
210.2 1.430
200.7 1.450
200.9 1.470
Method Reported
Value
210.2 1.500
200.7 1.500
200.9 1.520
210.2 1.580
other 1.700
other 1.700
200.7 2.000
Water Study: 36
True Value: 7.7 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
210.2 5.200
200.9 5.840
200.7 5.900
200.9 6.700
3113B 6.780
200.7 6.780
200.8 6.880
200.7 6.900
200.9 6.940
200.8 6.970
200.7 7.000
Method Reported
Value
200.8 7.020
other 7.080
200.7 7.150
200.7 7.150
200.7 7.160
200.9 7.200
200.7 7.230
200.8 7.290
other 7.300
200.9 7.300
200.7 7.320
Method Reported
Value
3113B 7.340
200.8 7.340
200.8 7.370
200.9 7.380
200.7 7.390
200.7 7.400
200.9 7.400
200.8 7.400
200.7 7.450
200.7 7.460
200.7 7.470
Method Reported
Value
200.8 7.490
200.9 7.500
other 7.500
200.7 7.500
200.9 7.510
200.7 7.520
200.7 7.525
3113B 7.550
200.9 7.560
200.7 7.570
200.9 7.590
Method Reported
Value
200.7 7.660
200.7 7.720
200.7 7.730
3113B 7.800
200.8 7.800
3113B 7.810
200.8 7.900
3113B 7.950
200.9 8.000
200.7 8.000
200.7 8.050
Method Reported
Value
other 8.130
3113B 8.170
210.2 8.300
3113B 8.310
3113B 8.500
200.9 8.500





Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-19
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 37
True Value: 4.26 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
200.9 1.000
200.7 3.700
200.9 3.750
200.7 3.880
200.7 3.970
200.7 4.000
3113B 4.040
200.7 4.090
200.8 4.100
Method Reported
Value
3113B 4.120
200.9 4.120
200.8 4.130
200.7 4.130
200.9 4.160
200.9 4.170
200.9 4.190
200.7 4.200
200.7 4.200
Method Reported
Value
200.9 4.200
200.9 4.200
200.7 4.200
200.9 4.200
200.7 4.200
200.9 4.230
200.8 4.240
200.7 4.250
200.7 4.260
Method Reported
Value
200.7 4.270
200.7 4.270
3113B 4.300
3113B 4.310
200.9 4.320
200.8 4.320
200.7 4.350
200.8 4.350
200.9 4.350
Method Reported
Value
200.7 4.400
200.7 4.400
200.7 4.420
200.7 4.420
200.9 4.450
200.9 4.480
200.9 4.500
200.9 4.550
3113B 4.550
Method Reported
Value
200.8 4.600
200.8 4.630
3113B 4.690
200.7 4.780





Water Study: 38
True Value: 10.1 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
200.9 2.620
200.9 5.140
200.9 7.680
200.7 8.880
200.9 9.060
200.7 9.120
200.8 9.210
200.8 9.360
200.9 9.400
200.7 9.400
200.8 9.400
Method Reported
Value
200.8 9.550
200.9 9.600
200.9 9.600
3113B 9.630
200.7 9.630
200.8 9.650
200.7 9.700
200.9 9.750
200.7 9.760
other 9.790
200.7 9.800
Method Reported
Value
200.7 9.800
200.7 9.800
200.9 9.800
200.7 9.850
200.7 9.850
200.9 9.880
200.9 9.880
200.8 9.900
200.9 9.910
200.7 9.920
200.8 9.950
Method Reported
Value
200.9 9.990
200.7 9.996
200.9 10.000
200.8 10.000
200.7 10.000
200.8 10.000
200.7 10.100
200.7 10.100
200.7 10.100
200.8 10.100
3113B 10.100
Method Reported
Value
200.7 10.100
200.8 10.300
200.8 10.300
3113B 10.400
200.7 10.500
200.7 10.500
200.9 10.500
200.8 10.600
200.9 10.800
other 10.800
200.8 11.000
Method Reported
Value
200.7 11.000
other 11.000
200.7 11.000
200.9 11.600
200.9 11.600
3113B 12.300
200.7 15.200
200.9 34.400



Water Study: 39
True Value: 1.20 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
200.7 1.000
200.7 1.000
200.9 1.000
200.7 1.050
200.7 1.060
200.9 1.070
200.7 1.100
200.7 1.100
3113B 1.100
Method Reported
Value
200.9 1.100
200.7 1.110
200.9 1.120
200.9 1.140
200.7 1.150
200.9 1.160
200.9 1.180
200.9 1.180
200.9 1.190
Method Reported
Value
200.9 1.190
200.7 1.190
200.9 1.200
200.7 1.200
200.9 1.200
200.8 1.200
3113B 1.200
200.7 1.200
200.8 1.200
Method Reported
Value
3113B 1.210
200.9 1.210
3113B 1.210
200.9 1.210
200.7 1.220
200.8 1.230
200.8 1.230
200.7 1.240
200.8 1.270
Method Reported
Value
200.8 1.280
200.8 1.280
200.9 1.290
3113B 1.300
200.9 1.300
200.7 1.300
200.9 1.320
3113B 1.330
200.9 1.350
Method Reported
Value
200.7 1.370
200.9 1.430
200.8 1.470
200.7 1.580
200.7 1.600
200.7 1.730



Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-20
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 40
True Value: 6.6 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
3113B 2.900
200.7 5.500
200.8 5.600
200.7 5.700
200.7 6.000
3113B 6.090
200.7 6.140
200.7 6.150
other 6.200
200.7 6.240
200.7 6.250
Method Reported
Value
3113B 6.250
200.9 6.290
200.8 6.290
200.7 6.290
200.7 6.300
200.9 6.330
200.7 6.350
200.9 6.370
200.8 6.400
200.9 6.400
200.8 6.400
Method Reported
Value
200.8 6.420
200.9 6.430
200.8 6.450
200.9 6.450
200.7 6.470
200.8 6.470
200.7 6.480
200.9 6.480
200.8 6.480
200.8 6.490
200.7 6.500
Method Reported
Value
200.7 6.500
200.8 6.500
200.9 6.510
200.8 6.520
other 6.520
200.7 6.530
200.7 6.550
3120B 6.560
3113B 6.570
200.7 6.580
3113B 6.580
Method Reported
Value
200.9 6.600
3113B 6.630
other 6.650
200.7 6.650
200.8 6.650
200.7 6.690
200.9 6.700
200.9 6.720
200.9 6.870
200.8 6.900
200.8 6.971
Method Reported
Value
200.8 6.980
200.8 6.990
200.9 7.000
200.7 7.140
200.8 7.310
200.7 7.350
3113B 7.660
200.9 7.840
200.9 8.000


Water Study: 41
True Value: 2.58 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
200.8 2.180
3113B 2.420
3120B 2.420
200.7 2.440
200.7 2.460
200.7 2.460
200.8 2.470
200.9 2.500
Method Reported
Value
200.9 2.500
200.9 2.500
200.7 2.510
200.9 2.540
200.8 2.560
200.8 2.560
200.8 2.590
200.9 2.600
Method Reported
Value
200.7 2.600
200.8 2.600
200.7 2.640
3113B 2.640
200.8 2.640
200.9 2.640
200.9 2.650
200.9 2.650
Method Reported
Value
200.7 2.650
200.7 2.670
200.9 2.700
200.9 2.700
200.7 2.700
200.7 2.700
200.9 2.740
200.8 2.760
Method Reported
Value
200.8 2.780
200.8 2.780
200.9 2.790
200.7 2.800
200.7 2.800
200.9 2.800
200.7 2.800
other 2.800
Method Reported
Value
200.7 2.820
200.9 2.830
3113B 2.830
200.9 3.000
200.7 3.050
200.9 5.020


 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate

 Water Study: 24a
 True Value: 3.18 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
525 2.430
525 2.640
525 3.080
Method Reported
Value
525 3.880
525 4.100
525 5.860
Method Reported
Value
other 6.360
525 7.770
525 8.300
Method Reported
Value
other 8.950
525 10.260
other 12.300
Method Reported
Value
other 19.000
other 19.600
Method Reported
Value

Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-21
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 24b
True Value: 19.1 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
other 12.000
525 13.200
other 14.000
Method
other
525
525
Water Study: 26a
True Value: 34.2 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
525 17.200
525 20.000
other 20.600
Method
525
other
other
Water Study: 26b
True Value: 7.73 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
525 4.060
other 6.570
other 6.840
Method
other
525
other
Water Study: 27
True Value: 17.3 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
525 6.180
525 9.990
Method
525
525
Water Study: 29
True Value: 4.58 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
525 2.200
525 2.460
Method
525
525
Water Study: 30
True Value: 6.40 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
525 1.730
525 4.230
506 4.610
Method
525
other
525
Reported
Value
14.600
15.000
15.200
Method
other
525
525


Reported
Value
21.000
27.300
29.700
Method
525
525
525


Reported
Value
6.840
7.030
8.040
Method
525
525
525


Reported
Value
11.000
12.200
Method
525
525


Reported
Value
2.740
2.910
Method
525
525


Reported
Value
5.350
5.400
5.800
Method
other
525
525
Reported
Value
16.000
16.700
17.000
Method
525
525
other


Reported
Value
30.900
33.200
38.260
Method
other
525
other


Reported
Value
8.180
8.440
9.390
Method
525
525
other


Reported
Value
13.000
14.900
Method
other



Reported
Value
3.000
4.010
Method
525
525


Reported
Value
5.920
6.060
6.430
Method
other
525
525
Reported
Value
17.500
18.500
20.500
Method Reported
Value
525 21.900
525 27.200
other 42.000
Method Reported
Value





Reported
Value
39.400
47.400
60.000
Method Reported
Value
other 70.300


Method Reported
Value





Reported
Value
12.450
14.000
20.000
Method Reported
Value
other 25.600


Method Reported
Value





Reported
Value
18.100

Method Reported
Value


Method Reported
Value




Reported
Value
7.700
17.800
Method Reported
Value


Method Reported
Value




Reported
Value
9.300
9.900
11.100
Method Reported
Value
506 12.300
other 12.600
525 14.300
Method Reported
Value



Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-22
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 31
True Value: 11.7 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
525.1 3.680
525.1 5.567
Method Reported
Value
other 7.400
525.1 7.910
Method Reported
Value
525.1 8.750
506 8.780
Method Reported
Value
525.1 9.870
525.1 10.000
Method Reported
Value
525.1 10.600
other 12.000
Method Reported
Value
506 12.710
other 13.500
Water Study: 32
True Value: 9.28 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
525.1 4.200
506 4.310
other 4.650
525.1 4.880
525.1 5.980
Method Reported
Value
525.1 7.330
other 7.460
525.1 7.540
525.1 8.000
506 8.020
Method Reported
Value
525.1 8.360
525.1 8.670
525.1 8.950
525.1 8.990
525.1 9.035
Method Reported
Value
other 9.110
525.1 9.190
525.1 9.320
525.1 9.400
506 9.560
Method Reported
Value
525.1 9.590
525.1 11.400
other 12.800
525.1 12.900
525.1 12.900
Method Reported
Value
525.1 14.600
525.1 43.500



Water Study: 33
True Value: 15.8 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
506 3.430
506 4.050
506 8.370
525.1 8.950
Method Reported
Value
506 9.210
525.1 10.900
other 11.800
525.1 12.600
Method Reported
Value
525.1 13.760
525.1 14.100
525.1 14.100
525.1 14.400
Method Reported
Value
525.1 14.900
525.1 15.610
525.1 16.300
506 16.400
Method Reported
Value
other 18.400
other 18.500
525.1 19.200
525.1 20.160
Method Reported
Value
525.1 21.670
other 25.700
525.1 31.000

Water Study: 34
True Value: 21.3 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
525.1 7.400
506 10.200
525.1 12.600
525.1 13.400
506 13.800
525.1 14.900
other 15.700
Method Reported
Value
525.1 16.300
525.1 18.000
525.1 18.100
525.1 18.400
506 19.100
525.1 19.200
525.1 19.600
Method Reported
Value
525.1 19.700
525.1 20.200
506 20.200
525.1 20.200
525.1 20.200
other 20.500
525.1 20.900
Method Reported
Value
506 22.000





Method Reported
Value
525.1 23.250
525.1 23.600
525.1 24.000
525.1 24.100
525.1 24.500

Method Reported
Value
525.1 24.600
525.1 27.180
525.1 27.200
506 30.000
525.1 31.800
525.1 42.700

Water Study: 35
True Value: 37.7 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
525.1 16.200
506 22.150
506 23.600
525.1 27.450
Method Reported
Value
525.1 29.600
525.1 36.600
525.1 36.750
525.1 37.500
Method Reported
Value
525.1 40.650
525.1 41.200
506 43.200
525.1 43.900
Method Reported
Value
other 44.900
525.1 45.860
525.1 45.900
other 46.700
Method Reported
Value
525.1 48.000
other 49.000
525.1 59.400
other 65.000
Method Reported
Value




Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-23
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 36
True Value: 18.3 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
525.1 1.240
other 5.090
506 8.800
506 9.840
525.2 11.100
525.2 12.400
other 13.600
Method Reported
Value
525.1 13.600
525.2 14.200
525.2 14.400
506 14.400
525.2 15.600
506 15.800
other 16.300
Method Reported
Value
506 16.600
525.2 16.800
525.2 17.200
506 17.400
other 17.700
525.2 17.800
other 17.830
Method Reported
Value
525.2 17.900
525.2 18.000
other 18.900
525.2 18.900
525.2 19.100
525.2 19.100
525.2 19.200
Method Reported
Value
525.2 19.600
525.2 19.700
525.2 20.000
525.2 20.600
506 20.600
525.2 21.000
525.2 21.500
Method Reported
Value
525.2 21.800
506 23.400
506 27.600
525.1 29.300



Water Study: 37
True Value: 21.3 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
525.2 5.100
506 9.350
525.2 11.510
506 12.000
525.1 13.500
other 14.260
Method Reported
Value
525.2 14.700
506 16.600
525.2 18.800
525.2 19.000
506 19.200
other 19.400
Method Reported
Value
525.2 19.900
525.2 20.300
525.2 20.550
506 20.600
525.2 20.600
525.2 20.700
Method Reported
Value
525.2 20.900
other 21.000
525.2 21.100
506 21.800
525.2 22.200
525.2 22.700
Method Reported
Value
525.2 22.800
525.2 22.900
525.2 24.100
other 24.600
525.2 24.700
525.2 25.200
Method Reported
Value
525.2 26.600
525.2 31.500
525.2 35.600



Water Study: 38
True Value: 13.7 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
other 4.410
525.2 6.370
other 9.710
506 10.500
525.2 10.600
525.2 12.000
Method Reported
Value
525.2 12.300
525.2 12.500
other 12.700
525.2 12.700
506 12.800
525.2 13.030
Method Reported
Value
525.2 13.200
525.2 13.600
525.2 13.600
506 13.600
525.2 13.900
506 14.000
Method Reported
Value
525.2 14.200
525.2 14.700
525.2 14.800
525.2 15.000
525.2 15.300
other 15.500
Method Reported
Value
525.2 15.900
525.2 16.800
525.2 16.800
other 17.300
525.2 17.400
506 18.100
Method Reported
Value
525.2 18.100
525.2 18.500
other 20.610
525.2 24.800
525.2 25.900

Water Study: 39
True Value: 27.7 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
525.2 17.200
506 20.000
525.2 20.300
525.2 22.640
525.2 23.700
Method Reported
Value
506 24.300
525.2 24.500
525.2 24.700
525.2 25.400
525.2 25.600
Method Reported
Value
525.2 25.800
525.2 27.400
525.2 28.400
525.2 29.400
525.2 29.500
Method Reported
Value
506 29.500
525.2 30.600
525.2 30.900
525.2 30.900
525.2 36.500
Method Reported
Value
525.2 38.400
525.2 39.100
525.2 39.600
525.2 40.900
506 41.900
Method Reported
Value
525.2 42.400




Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-24
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 40
True Value: 32.4 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
506 1.950
525.2 8.250
525.2 12.100
other 17.100
other 19.300
525.2 19.500
525.2 20.300
Method Reported
Value
506 22.400
525.2 23.380
525.2 24.300
525.2 25.800
525.2 26.800
525.2 27.100
506 27.300
Method Reported
Value
506 27.300
525.2 27.400
525.2 28.000
525.2 28.300
525.2 28.300
525.2 28.400
525.2 29.200
Method Reported
Value
525.2 30.600
525.2 30.800
525.2 31.500
525.2 32.500
other 32.600
506 33.400
506 34.800
Method Reported
Value
525.2 35.780
525.2 35.900
525.2 35.900
525.2 36.600
other 40.200
525.2 40.800
525.2 41.000
Method Reported
Value
525.2 42.900
525.2 52.200
525.2 65.400




Water Study: 41
True Value: 15.3 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
506 6.000
506 9.780
525.2 12.200
525.2 12.300
525.2 13.040
Method Reported
Value
525.2 13.400
525.2 14.090
525.2 14.500
525.2 14.700
525.2 14.700
Method Reported
Value
other 14.800
525.2 14.800
525.2 15.200
506 15.600
525.2 16.000
Method Reported
Value
525.2 16.700
525.2 17.200
525.2 18.100
525.2 19.400
525.2 20.100
Method Reported
Value
525.2 20.300
525.2 21.100
525.2 24.300
525.2 25.700
525.2 42.000
Method Reported
Value





 Cadmium
Water Study: 24a
True Value: 15.4 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
213.2 11.600
213.1 13.400
213.2 13.600
213.2 14.400
213.1 14.400
213.2 14.500
213.2 14.600
200.7A 14.600
213.2 14.600
213.2 14.700
213.2 14.700
Method Reported
Value
213.1 14.800
200.7A 14.800
200.7A 14.800
200.7A 14.900
213.2 15.000
200.7 15.000
213.1 15.000
200.7A 15.000
213.2 15.000
213.2 15.000
213.2 15.100
Method Reported
Value
200.7A 15.100
213.2 15.200
213.2 15.200
200.7A 15.200
213.2 15.200
213.1 15.300
200.7A 15.300
200.7A 15.400
213.1 15.400
other 15.500
213.2 15.500
Method Reported
Value
213.1 15.600
213.1 15.700
213.2 15.700
other 15.800
213.2 15.900
213.2 15.900
213.1 16.000
213.2 16.000
213.2 16.000
213.2 16.000
other 16.100
Method Reported
Value
213.2 16.350
213.2 16.400
other 16.500
213.1 16.500
213.2 16.500
213.2 16.500
213.2 16.600
213.2 17.100
213.2 17.200
213.2 17.300
213.2 17.600
Method Reported
Value
213.2 17.800
213.2 18.500
213.2 19.400
213.2 19.500
213.2 20.000
213.2 168.000





Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-25
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 24b
True Value: 10.4 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
213.2 9.200
213.1 9.220
200.7A 9.300
213.2 9.370
213.1 9.420
213.2 9.500
213.2 9.540
213.2 9.660
213.2 9.750
200.7A 9.800
213.2 9.800
Method Reported
Value
213.2 9.840
213.1 10.000
213.2 10.000
200.7A 10.000
other 10.000
213.2 10.000
213.1 10.000
200.7A 10.000
213.2 10.000
other 10.100
200.7A 10.100
Method Reported
Value
213.1 10.100
other 10.100
200.7A 10.100
213.2 10.200
213.1 10.200
200.7A 10.200
200.7A 10.200
213.2 10.200
213.2 10.200
213.2 10.200
213.2 10.300
Method Reported
Value
213.2 10.300
213.1 10.400
213.2 10.500
213.2 10.500
213.2 10.500
213.2 10.500
213.2 10.500
213.1 10.600
200.7A 10.600
213.2 10.600
200.7A 10.700
Method Reported
Value
213.1 10.800
213.2 10.800
other 10.800
213.2 11.000
213.1 11.000
213.2 11.000
213.2 11.000
213.2 11.000
213.2 11.100
213.2 11.200
213.2 11.400
Method Reported
Value
213.2 11.500
213.2 11.800
213.2 12.200
213.2 13.200
213.2 14.100
213.2 39.000





Water Study: 25
True Value: 27.6 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
213.2 22.500
213.2 23.500
213.2 24.500
213.2 24.500
213.2 24.500
200.7 25.000
213.2 25.000
Method Reported
Value
213.2 25.000
213.1 25.100
200.7 26.000
213.2 26.000
213.1 26.400
213.2 26.600
213.2 26.700
Method Reported
Value
213.2 26.800
213.2 26.900
213.2 27.000
213.1 27.000
213.2 27.000
213.2 27.000
213.2 27.400
Method Reported
Value
213.2 27.600
other 27.800
200.7 27.900
213.2 27.900
213.2 28.000
213.1 28.000
213.2 28.000
Method Reported
Value
213.2 28.000
200.7 28.100
213.2 29.000
213.2 29.600
213.2 29.900
213.2 30.000
200.7 30.900
Method Reported
Value
213.2 31.000
213.2 31.600
213.2 31.700
213.2 31.800
213.2 32.100


Water Study: 26a
True Value: 53.9 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
213.2 42.000
213.2 44.100
213.2 44.400
213.2 44.500
213.2 45.000
213.2 46.100
213.2 47.800
213.2 48.000
213.2 48.000
other 48.000
213.2 48.400
Method Reported
Value
213.1 49.600
213.2 49.800
213.2 50.000
213.1 50.400
213.2 50.600
200.7 51.000
213.2 51.000
200.7 51.000
other 51.400
213.1 51.600
213.1 51.600
Method Reported
Value
200.7 51.830
other 52.000
200.7 52.000
213.1 52.300
other 52.400
213.2 52.500
213.2 52.500
213.2 52.600
213.2 52.600
200.7 52.800
213.2 52.800
Method Reported
Value
213.2 53.100
213.2 53.200
213.2 53.300
213.2 53.400
213.1 53.400
200.7 53.700
213.1 53.700
213.2 53.800
213.1 53.900
213.1 54.000
213.2 54.000
Method Reported
Value
213.2 54.100
other 54.100
213.2 54.200
213.2 54.200
213.1 54.300
200.7 54.300
200.7 56.100
other 56.100
200.7 56.200
200.7 56.900
200.7 57.500
Method Reported
Value
213.2 57.700
213.2 58.800
213.1 59.000
200.7 60.000
213.2 60.000
213.2 60.000
213.2 67.900




Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-26
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 26b
True Value: 9.20 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
213.2 6.450
200.7 6.700
213.2 7.420
213.2 7.860
213.2 8.080
213.2 8.250
213.1 8.400
213.2 8.430
213.2 8.550
213.1 8.600
other 8.700
Method Reported
Value
213.2 8.720
other 8.800
213.1 8.800
213.2 8.860
213.2 8.900
200.7 8.900
213.1 8.970
200.7 8.970
other 9.000
213.2 9.000
213.2 9.000
Method Reported
Value
213.2 9.000
213.1 9.020
213.2 9.100
213.2 9.150
213.2 9.180
200.7 9.200
200.7 9.250
213.1 9.250
213.2 9.250
213.1 9.250
200.7 9.300
Method Reported
Value
213.1 9.300
other 9.300
213.2 9.320
213.1 9.320
200.7 9.400
213.2 9.400
200.7 9.400
213.2 9.400
213.2 9.430
213.2 9.600
other 9.620
Method Reported
Value
213.2 9.630
213.2 9.700
213.2 9.700
200.7 9.800
213.2 9.810
213.2 10.000
200.7 10.000
213.2 10.100
213.2 10.200
213.2 10.400
200.7 10.800
Method Reported
Value
213.2 10.800
213.2 10.800
213.1 10.900
213.1 11.000
other 11.200
213.2 11.900
200.7 12.000




Water Study: 27
True Value: 29.3 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
213.2 20.400
213.2 26.000
other 26.100
200.7 26.700
213.2 26.900
213.2 27.060
213.2 27.600
Method Reported
Value
213.2 27.700
213.2 27.700
213.2 27.700
200.7 28.000
213.1 28.000
213.2 28.000
other 28.400
Method Reported
Value
200.7 28.500
213.2 29.000
213.2 29.000
213.2 29.000
213.2 29.200
200.7 29.200
213.2 29.400
Method Reported
Value
213.2 29.600
213.2 29.600
213.2 29.700
200.7 29.800
200.7 29.800
213.1 30.000
213.1 30.000
Method Reported
Value
200.7 30.000
213.2 30.300
200.7 30.400
213.2 30.700
213.2 30.900
200.7 30.940
213.2 31.200
Method Reported
Value
213.2 33.000
213.2 33.000
213.2 34.700
213.2 36.800
213.2 158.000


Water Study: 29
True Value: 2.80 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
213.2 2.000
213.2 2.200
other 2.200
other 2.300
200.7 2.410
213.2 2.500
Method Reported
Value
200.7 2.600
other 2.650
213.2 2.670
213.1 2.690
213.2 2.720
213.2 2.740
Method Reported
Value
213.2 2.750
213.2 2.780
other 2.800
213.1 2.810
200.7 2.860
213.2 2.870
Method Reported
Value
213.2 2.875
200.7 2.900
213.2 2.900
other 2.900
213.2 2.900
213.2 2.900
Method Reported
Value
213.2 2.910
213.2 2.930
213.2 3.000
213.2 3.000
213.2 3.090
213.2 3.100
Method Reported
Value
213.2 3.110
213.2 3.300
213.2 3.400
other 191.000


Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-27
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 30
True Value: 39.0 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
other 32.000
213.2 32.000
213.2 32.100
213.2 32.500
213.1 33.000
200.7 35.000
213.2 35.000
213.2 35.500
213.2 36.000
213.2 36.800
213.1 36.900
Method Reported
Value
213.1 37.000
213.1 37.000
213.1 37.000
200.7 37.190
200.7 37.200
213.2 37.400
200.7 37.500
213.1 37.500
200.7 37.500
200.7 37.600
213.2 37.800
Method Reported
Value
other 37.800
213.2 37.900
213.2 38.000
other 38.000
213.2 38.100
213.2 38.500
200.7 38.600
213.2 38.700
213.2 38.800
213.2 38.900
other 39.000
Method Reported
Value
200.7 39.000
213.1 39.000
200.7 39.200
213.2 39.200
200.7 39.200
213.1 39.400
200.7 39.500
other 39.500
200.7 39.600
213.2 39.900
213.1 40.000
Method Reported
Value
213.2 40.000
213.2 40.100
213.2 40.100
213.2 40.160
213.2 40.300
200.7 40.500
213.2 40.800
213.1 41.000
213.2 41.070
200.7 41.200
200.7 41.300
Method Reported
Value
213.2 41.700
213.2 41.700
213.1 41.700
213.2 42.000
213.1 42.000
213.1 42.000
other 42.000
213.2 42.190
213.2 42.300
213.2 45.700
200.7 47.200
Water Study: 31
True Value: 12.8 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
213.2 7.080
213.2 9.990
213.2 10.500
213.2 11.300
other 11.400
213.2 11.500
Method Reported
Value
213.2 11.600
213.2 11.950
213.1 12.000
213.2 12.000
213.2 12.080
213.1 12.200
Method Reported
Value
213.2 12.200
200.7 12.300
213.2 12.500
213.2 12.500
213.2 12.700
other 12.700
Method Reported
Value
200.7 12.900
213.2 12.900
213.2 12.930
213.2 13.000
200.7 13.000
other 13.000
Method Reported
Value
213.2 13.000
213.2 13.000
other 13.000
213.2 13.400
200.7 13.400
other 13.500
Method Reported
Value
213.2 13.600
213.1 14.200
213.2 14.200
other 14.500
213.2 15.800

Water Study: 32
True Value: 4.80 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
213.2 3.970
213.2 4.200
213.2 4.200
213.1 4.220
213.2 4.280
200.7 4.370
213.2 4.400
213.2 4.430
213.2 4.490
213.2 4.500
213.2 4.500
213.2 4.500
Method Reported
Value
213.2 4.540
other 4.570
213.2 4.590
213.2 4.600
200.7 4.600
213.2 4.640
213.2 4.690
213.2 4.690
213.2 4.700
213.2 4.700
213.2 4.700
213.2 4.730
Method Reported
Value
200.7 4.740
213.2 4.740
other 4.740
213.2 4.750
213.2 4.760
213.2 4.770
213.2 4.790
213.2 4.790
200.7 4.800
213.2 4.820
200.7 4.880
200.7 4.880
Method Reported
Value
213.2 4.900
200.7 4.900
200.7 4.900
213.2 4.920
213.1 4.980
213.2 4.990
213.2 5.000
200.7 5.000
213.2 5.000
213.2 5.000
213.2 5.000
other 5.000
Method Reported
Value
213.2 5.040
213.2 5.050
213.2 5.080
213.2 5.103
213.2 5.170
200.7 5.200
other 5.200
213.2 5.200
213.2 5.300
200.7 5.370
213.2 5.400
200.7 5.530
Method Reported
Value
213.2 5.690
other 5.690
213.2 5.700
200.7 5.770
213.2 6.030
213.2 7.300
213.2 7.500





Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-28
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 33
True Value: 49.0 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
213.2 41.700
200.7 44.700
213.2 45.000
200.7 45.500
other 45.900
213.2 46.000
213.2 46.300
Method Reported
Value
213.2 46.500
other 46.800
200.7 47.000
3113B 47.000
200.7 47.000
213.2 47.400
200.7 47.600
Method Reported
Value
other 47.700
213.2 47.800
200.7 47.900
200.7 48.000
other 48.000
200.7 48.300
213.2 48.500
Method Reported
Value
213.2 48.580
other 48.700
213.2 48.700
other 48.800
213.2 49.000
213.2 49.000
213.1 49.000
Method Reported
Value
other 49.000
213.2 49.000
200.7 49.100
213.2 49.200
213.2 49.400
213.2 50.000
other 51.200
Method Reported
Value
213.2 51.200
200.7 54.700
213.2 59.800




Water Study: 34
True Value: 23.0 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
213.2 16.700
213.2 19.300
213.2 19.600
200.7 20.000
213.2 20.700
213.2 21.500
213.2 21.600
200.7 21.700
other 21.700
213.2 21.900
213.2 21.900
Method Reported
Value
other 22.000
200.7 22.000
213.2 22.000
200.7 22.000
213.2 22.000
213.2 22.100
213.2 22.100
other 22.100
213.2 22.100
200.7 22.200
213.2 22.400
Method Reported
Value
213.2 22.400
213.1 22.500
213.2 22.500
other 22.500
200.7 22.500
other 22.600
213.2 22.600
213.2 22.620
200.7 22.700
213.2 22.700
200.7 22.900
Method Reported
Value
200.7 22.900
213.2 22.900
other 23.000
213.2 23.000
213.2 23.000
213.2 23.100
other 23.110
213.2 23.200
200.7 23.300
other 23.400
200.7 23.500
Method Reported
Value
213.2 23.600
other 23.700
213.2 23.700
213.2 23.700
200.7 23.900
200.7 23.900
213.2 23.900
213.2 24.000
200.7 24.000
200.7 24.000
200.7 24.200
Method Reported
Value
200.7 24.300
200.7 24.300
213.2 24.500
213.2 24.500
213.2 24.600
213.2 25.000
213.2 25.200
213.2 26.200
213.2 27.200
200.7 47.400

Water Study: 35
True Value: 2.80 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
3113B 1.800
200.7 2.100
200.7 2.210
other 2.560
213.2 2.600
213.2 2.600
213.2 2.620
Method Reported
Value
200.7 2.650
3113B 2.650
213.2 2.660
213.2 2.670
213.2 2.700
other 2.700
other 2.700
Method Reported
Value
213.2 2.720
213.2 2.740
213.2 2.750
other 2.800
213.2 2.800
213.2 2.850
213.2 2.860
Method Reported
Value
213.2 2.890
213.2 2.890
213.2 2.900
213.2 2.930
213.2 2.960
213.2 3.000
213.2 3.000
Method Reported
Value
200.7 3.000
other 3.000
213.2 3.050
other 3.090
200.7 3.090
other 3.110
213.2 3.160
Method Reported
Value
200.7 3.280
other 3.300
213.2 3.860
other 27.300



Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-29
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 36
True Value: 34.0 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
200.7 29.400
3113B 30.000
200.7 30.000
other 30.800
3113B 31.300
200.8 32.000
3113B 32.100
200.7 32.200
other 32.200
200.8 32.300
200.7 32.700
Method Reported
Value
200.8 32.800
200.9 32.800
3113B 33.000
200.7 33.000
200.9 33.000
213.2 33.300
other 33.300
200.8 33.400
3113B 33.400
200.7 33.500
3113B 33.500
Method Reported
Value
3113B 33.600
3113B 33.700
200.9 33.700
200.8 33.700
3113B 33.900
213.2 34.000
200.7 34.100
200.9 34.100
200.7 34.100
200.8 34.100
200.7 34.200
Method Reported
Value
200.8 34.300
200.9 34.400
200.7 34.400
213.2 34.400
3113B 34.500
200.7 34.500
200.7 34.700
200.9 34.700
3113B 34.800
200.7 34.800
200.8 34.900
Method Reported
Value
3113B 35.100
200.7 35.400
213.2 35.400
3113B 35.400
3113B 35.400
200.7 35.600
200.9 35.600
200.7 35.800
200.7 35.900
200.7 36.000
200.7 36.000
Method Reported
Value
200.7 36.000
200.8 36.000
other 36.300
3113B 36.400
200.7 36.500
3113B 36.500
other 36.500
200.7 36.900
200.9 37.000
200.9 38.300
213.2 56.300
Water Study: 37
True Value: 10.2 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
3113B 5.350
3113B 8.310
200.9 8.600
3113B 8.950
200.9 8.990
200.9 9.000
200.7 9.050
200.7 9.100
213.2 9.110
Method Reported
Value
200.7 9.210
200.7 9.340
200.9 9.430
200.7 9.480
200.8 9.480
3113B 9.500
200.9 9.520
200.8 9.540
200.9 9.540
Method Reported
Value
200.9 9.550
3113B 9.560
200.7 9.600
200.7 9.630
200.9 9.650
200.9 9.680
200.7 9.700
200.7 9.700
200.8 9.800
Method Reported
Value
200.7 9.830
3113B 9.860
200.8 9.880
other 9.900
200.9 9.900
200.9 9.980
200.9 10.000
200.7 10.000
200.9 10.000
Method Reported
Value
200.9 10.100
200.8 10.100
3113B 10.100
200.8 10.100
3113B 10.100
3113B 10.200
200.7 10.200
200.8 10.200
3113B 10.300
Method Reported
Value
200.9 10.300
200.9 10.300
200.7 10.700
200.9 10.800
200.7 10.900
200.7 11.100



Water Study: 38
True Value: 2.12 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
200.9 1.100
3113B 1.170
200.9 1.800
200.9 1.800
200.8 1.810
200.9 1.840
3113B 1.877
3113B 1.880
200.9 1.900
200.9 1.900
200.8 1.910
Method Reported
Value
200.9 1.950
200.9 1.960
200.7 1.980
200.7 2.000
200.9 2.000
200.8 2.000
3113B 2.000
200.8 2.000
200.8 2.000
200.9 2.020
200.8 2.040
Method Reported
Value
200.8 2.040
200.9 2.040
200.8 2.050
200.8 2.070
200.7 2.090
200.7 2.100
200.7 2.100
200.8 2.100
200.9 2.100
200.9 2.100
200.9 2.100
Method Reported
Value
3113B 2.110
200.8 2.130
200.7 2.130
200.8 2.140
200.9 2.150
200.9 2.150
3113B 2.150
200.9 2.160
200.7 2.160
200.8 2.160
200.9 2.170
Method Reported
Value
200.8 2.180
3113B 2.180
200.8 2.200
200.9 2.200
3113B 2.250
200.7 2.300
200.8 2.300
200.7 2.300
other 2.300
200.9 2.360
3113B 2.410
Method Reported
Value
200.9 2.480
200.9 2.560
200.7 2.650
200.7 2.660
other 2.890
3113B 3.150
200.7 3.460




Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-30
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 39
True Value: 28.5 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
3113B 24.500
3113B 24.600
200.7 26.400
3113B 26.600
200.8 27.200
200.8 27.200
200.9 27.200
200.9 27.300
200.7 27.300
Method Reported
Value
3113B 27.300
3113B 27.400
200.9 27.400
200.7 27.600
200.9 27.600
200.9 27.600
200.9 27.600
200.7 27.600
3113B 27.600
Method Reported
Value
200.7 27.700
200.9 27.800
200.7 27.800
200.7 27.840
200.9 27.900
3113B 27.900
200.9 28.000
200.7 28.000
200.8 28.000
Method Reported
Value
200.9 28.000
200.8 28.100
200.7 28.200
3113B 28.300
200.8 28.300
3113B 28.400
200.8 28.500
200.7 28.600
200.9 28.700
Method Reported
Value
200.7 28.700
200.9 28.800
200.9 28.800
200.9 28.800
200.7 28.900
200.7 28.900
200.7 29.000
200.8 29.000
200.7 29.500
Method Reported
Value
200.8 29.500
200.7 29.600
200.8 29.700
200.9 29.800
200.7 30.600
200.9 31.300
200.9 31.400
200.7 31.600
200.9 44.900
Water Study: 40
True Value: 6.31 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
200.9 1.720
200.9 3.900
200.9 4.000
200.7 4.300
200.7 4.510
200.9 5.590
200.8 5.700
200.9 5.840
3113B 5.990
200.7 6.000
3113B 6.080
Method Reported
Value
200.9 6.100
200.9 6.130
200.9 6.160
200.8 6.180
3113B 6.180
200.8 6.190
200.9 6.200
200.8 6.200
3113B 6.200
3113B 6.230
200.7 6.230
Method Reported
Value
200.7 6.240
200.9 6.250
3113B 6.250
200.8 6.260
200.8 6.260
200.8 6.270
200.7 6.320
200.9 6.320
3113B 6.320
other 6.330
200.8 6.330
Method Reported
Value
200.8 6.340
200.8 6.360
200.8 6.380
200.7 6.400
200.7 6.400
200.8 6.400
200.8 6.400
200.8 6.410
200.9 6.490
200.7 6.500
200.7 6.500
Method Reported
Value
200.8 6.500
200.9 6.520
200.8 6.564
3113B 6.570
200.9 6.580
200.8 6.580
3113B 6.640
3113B 6.640
200.7 6.800
other 6.800
200.9 6.830
Method Reported
Value
200.7 6.840
200.7 6.880
200.7 6.880
200.8 6.960
200.7 7.000
200.9 7.100
200.9 7.480
200.7 7.630
200.7 8.280
200.7 9.810

Water Study: 41
True Value: 18.2 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
200.9 13.600
3113B 15.000
200.8 15.500
200.9 16.400
200.9 17.000
200.9 17.000
200.8 17.500
3113B 17.600
200.7 17.600
Method Reported
Value
200.7 17.700
200.9 17.900
200.7 18.000
200.7 18.000
3113B 18.100
200.7 18.200
200.8 18.400
200.9 18.400
200.9 18.500
Method Reported
Value
200.7 18.500
200.8 18.500
200.7 18.600
200.8 18.600
200.9 18.600
200.8 18.700
200.8 18.700
200.9 18.800
200.7 18.800
Method Reported
Value
200.7 18.800
200.8 18.800
200.8 19.000
200.9 19.000
200.7 19.000
3113B 19.000
200.7 19.000
201 19.000
200.9 19.000
Method Reported
Value
200.7 19.100
200.9 19.200
200.8 19.200
200.8 19.200
200.9 19.300
200.7 19.300
200.9 19.300
3113B 19.300
3113B 19.300
Method Reported
Value
200.7 19.600
200.7 19.900
200.7 21.160
200.9 25.600





Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-31
Final - March 2003

-------
 Carbofuran

 Water Study: 24a
 True Value: 15.6 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
531.1 11.300
531.1 15.000
Method
531.1
531.1
Water Study: 24b
True Value: 44.5 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
531.1 33.000
531.1 37.100
Method
531.1
531.1
Water Study: 25a
True Value: 24.2 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
531.1 7.980
Method
531.1
Water Study: 25b
True Value: 48.3 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
531.1 43.700
Method
531.1
Water Study: 26a
True Value: 36.3 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
531.1 21.000
531.1 27.400
other 32.000
Method
other
531.1
531.1
Water Study: 26b
True Value: 17.5 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
531.1 8.650
531.1 12.900
531.1 15.100
Method
other
other
531.1
Reported
Value
15.300
15.400
Method
other
other


Reported
Value
38.400
40.800
Method
531.1
531.1


Reported
Value
19.300
Method
531.1


Reported
Value
44.300
Method
531.1


Reported
Value
32.400
33.690
34.100
Method
531.1
531.1
531.1


Reported
Value
15.600
15.600
17.240
Method
531.1
531.1
531.1
Reported
Value
15.750
15.800
Method
531.1
531.1


Reported
Value
41.700
43.800
Method
531.1
other


Reported
Value
23.400
Method
531.1


Reported
Value
47.700
Method
531.1


Reported
Value
35.200
35.600
36.900
Method
531.1
531.1
531.1


Reported
Value
17.300
17.500
17.700
Method
531.1
531.1
531.1
Reported
Value
16.000
16.700
Method Reported
Value
531.1 16.800
531.1 17.200
Method Reported
Value
531.1 20.400



Reported
Value
44.000
45.040
Method Reported
Value
531.1 46.700
other 53.550
Method Reported
Value
531.1 57.900



Reported
Value
24.360
Method Reported
Value
531.1 26.190
Method Reported
Value



Reported
Value
51.430
Method Reported
Value
531.1 52.060
Method Reported
Value



Reported
Value
37.400
38.600
45.800
Method Reported
Value
531.1 47.700


Method Reported
Value





Reported
Value
18.100
19.000
21.700
Method Reported
Value
531.1 22.100


Method Reported
Value



Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-32
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 27
True Value: 20.7
Method Reported
Value
531.1 4.290
531.1 17.400
Method
531.1
531.1
Water Study: 29
True Value: 4.00
Method Reported
Value
531.1 3.900
531.1 3.960
Method
531.1
other
Water Study: 30
True Value: 5.78 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
531.1 5.100
531.1 5.230
531.1 5.240
531.1 5.320
531.1 5.390
Method
531.1
531.1
531.1
531.1
531.1
Water Study: 31
True Value: 11.3 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
531.1 4.890
531.1 5.430
531.1 8.250
Method
531.1
531.1
531.1
Water Study: 32
True Value: 7.67 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
531.1 4.230
531.1 6.540
531.1 6.580
531.1 6.700
531.1 6.780
531.1 7.000
Method
531.1
531.1
531.1
531.1
531.1
531.1


Reported
Value
18.200
18.500
Method
531.1
531.1


Reported
Value
4.030
4.170
Method
531.1
531.1


Reported
Value
5.500
5.560
5.610
5.650
5.720
Method
531.1
531.1
531.1
531.1
531.1


Reported
Value
8.750
9.430
10.300
Method
531.1
531.1
531.1


Reported
Value
7.070
7.110
7.160
7.190
7.340
7.420
Method
531.1
531.1
531.1
531.1
531.1
531.1


Reported
Value
21.700
23.300
Method
531.1
531.1


Reported
Value
4.220
4.510
Method
531.1
531.1


Reported
Value
5.970
6.210
6.260
6.280
6.310
Method
other
531.1
531.1
531.1
531.1


Reported
Value
10.500
10.700
11.400
Method
531.1
531.1
531.1


Reported
Value
7.440
7.450
7.460
7.520
7.610
7.640
Method
531.1
531.1
531.1
531.1
531.1
531.1


Reported
Value
26.800
27.500
Method




Reported
Value
4.670
4.970
Method
531.1
531.1


Reported
Value
6.330
6.470
6.720
7.270
7.320
Method
531.1
531.1
531.1
531.1
531.1


Reported
Value
11.700
11.800
11.900
Method
531.1
531.1



Reported
Value
7.640
7.740
7.760
7.850
7.850
7.860
Method
other
531.1
531.1
531.1
531.1
531.1


Reported
Value


Method Reported
Value




Reported
Value
5.000
6.490
Method Reported
Value




Reported
Value
7.500
7.820
7.890
8.200
8.880
Method Reported
Value
531.1 8.950






Reported
Value
12.000
12.300

Method Reported
Value





Reported
Value
7.880
7.910
7.910
8.030
8.070
8.230
Method Reported
Value
531.1 8.320
531.1 8.370
531.1 8.700
531.1 9.960
531.1 12.500
531.1 13.700
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-33
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 33
True Value: 24.8 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
531.1 1.560
531.1 10.300
other 15.200
531.1 19.000
531.1 19.700
531.1 20.400
Method Reported
Value
531.1 21.610
531.1 21.700
531.1 21.800
531.1 21.870
531.1 22.100
531.1 22.600
Method Reported
Value
531.1 22.800
531.1 23.800
531.1 23.900
531.1 23.900
531.1 24.500
531.1 24.800
Method Reported
Value
531.1 24.900
531.1 25.100
531.1 25.200
531.1 25.300
531.1 25.500
531.1 25.500
Method Reported
Value
531.1 25.500
531.1 25.700
531.1 26.300
531.1 28.400
531.1 28.600
531.1 29.600
Method Reported
Value
531.1 31.100
531.1 33.160
531.1 33.500



Water Study: 34
True Value: 18.5 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
531.1 0.017
531.1 6.010
531.1 15.200
531.1 15.900
531.1 16.000
531.1 16.000
531.1 16.400
531.1 16.600
Method Reported
Value
531.1 16.600
531.1 16.700
531.1 16.800
531.1 17.000
531.1 17.300
531.1 17.300
531.1 17.310
531.1 17.500
Method Reported
Value
531.1 17.600
531.1 17.700
531.1 17.700
531.1 17.800
531.1 17.900
531.1 17.900
531.1 18.000
531.1 18.000
Method Reported
Value
531.1 18.000
531.1 18.100
531.1 18.200
531.1 18.200
531.1 18.500
531.1 18.600
531.1 18.900
531.1 19.100
Method Reported
Value
531.1 19.600
531.1 19.900
531.1 20.070
531.1 20.100
531.1 21.400
531.1 21.600
531.1 21.700
531.1 22.400
Method Reported
Value
531.1 25.700
531.1 31.200
531.1 37.300





Water Study: 35
True Value: 42.8 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
531.1 22.100
531.1 26.900
531.1 28.900
531.1 32.900
531.1 33.600
Method Reported
Value
531.1 33.920
531.1 34.700
531.1 35.600
531.1 36.400
531.1 38.100
Method Reported
Value
531.1 38.490
531.1 39.400
531.1 39.570
531.1 39.700
531.1 40.600
Method Reported
Value
531.1 40.600
531.1 41.500
531.1 42.000
531.1 42.200
531.1 42.300
Method Reported
Value
531.1 43.200
531.1 43.800
531.1 44.000
531.1 45.200
531.1 46.600
Method Reported
Value
531.1 49.200
531.1 65.300
other 66.400
531.1 67.000
531.1 84.800
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-34
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 36
True Value: 37.8 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
531.1 22.900
531.1 26.000
531.1 26.200
531.1 28.900
531.1 31.000
531.1 31.100
531.1 31.200
531.1 31.300
Method Reported
Value
531.1 31.800
531.1 33.100
531.1 33.200
531.1 34.000
531.1 34.100
531.1 34.200
531.1 34.200
531.1 34.400
Method Reported
Value
531.1 34.700
531.1 34.900
531.1 35.000
531.1 35.300
531.1 36.300
531.1 36.400
531.1 36.800
531.1 37.300
Method Reported
Value
531.1 37.600
531.1 37.800
531.1 37.900
531.1 38.300
531.1 38.300
531.1 38.500
531.1 38.500
531.1 38.700
Method Reported
Value
531.1 38.700
531.1 39.300
531.1 39.300
531.1 40.000
531.1 40.000
531.1 40.400
531.1 40.400
531.1 40.500
Method Reported
Value
531.1 40.900
531.1 41.400
531.1 42.300
531.1 43.600
other 47.700
531.1 48.700
531.1 496.000

Water Study: 37
True Value: 48.9 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
other 7.920
531.1 30.600
531.1 36.000
531.1 38.500
531.1 39.000
531.1 39.000
Method Reported
Value
531.1 40.560
531.1 41.000
531.1 41.400
531.1 41.900
531.1 43.000
531.1 43.100
Method Reported
Value
531.1 43.300
531.1 44.000
531.1 44.100
531.1 44.600
531.1 44.700
531.1 45.000
Method Reported
Value
531.1 45.100
531.1 45.200
531.1 45.500
531.1 46.000
531.1 46.500
531.1 46.700
Method Reported
Value
531.1 46.700
531.1 46.730
531.1 47.400
other 47.700
531.1 48.300
531.1 48.300
Method Reported
Value
531.1 48.400
531.1 49.700
531.1 51.100
other 52.600
531.1 54.800
531.1 61.300
Water Study: 38
True Value: 33.6 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
531.1 4.250
other 22.600
531.1 27.400
531.1 29.500
531.1 30.200
531.1 31.200
531.1 31.700
Method Reported
Value
531.1 33.100
531.1 33.600
531.1 34.000
531.1 34.000
531.1 34.300
531.1 34.360
531.1 34.900
Method Reported
Value
531.1 35.200
531.1 35.500
531.1 35.600
531.1 36.300
531.1 36.400
531.1 36.800
531.1 37.000
Method Reported
Value
531.1 37.000
531.1 37.500
531.1 38.200
531.1 38.300
531.1 38.400
531.1 38.400
531.1 38.600
Method Reported
Value
531.1 39.200
531.1 39.300
531.1 40.000
531.1 41.000
531.1 41.000
531.1 41.180
531.1 41.400
Method Reported
Value
531.1 41.500
531.1 41.600
531.1 42.100
531.1 43.600
531.1 45.400
531.1 48.000
531.1 76.700
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-35
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 39
True Value: 74.5 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
531.1 40.600
531.1 52.300
531.1 52.500
531.1 63.200
531.1 63.500
531.1 64.300
Method Reported
Value
531.1 65.000
531.1 65.500
531.1 65.500
531.1 65.500
531.1 65.870
531.1 66.000
Method Reported
Value
531.1 66.300
531.1 66.500
531.1 66.800
531.1 67.100
531.1 67.100
531.1 67.100
Method Reported
Value
531.1 67.700
531.1 67.700
531.1 68.100
531.1 70.500
531.1 73.300
531.1 79.900
Method Reported
Value
531.1 81.500
531.1 81.700
531.1 83.260
531.1 84.100
531.1 85.900
531.1 89.000
Method Reported
Value
531.1 94.800





Water Study: 40
True Value: 55.0 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
531.1 41.800
531.1 43.200
other 43.500
531.1 45.100
531.1 45.300
531.1 47.100
531.1 50.000
Method Reported
Value
531.1 50.400
531.1 50.500
531.1 50.640
531.1 51.000
531.1 51.800
531.1 52.100
531.1 52.500
Method Reported
Value
531.1 53.300
531.1 54.300
531.1 54.300
531.1 54.400
531.1 54.500
531.1 54.600
531.1 54.600
Method Reported
Value
531.1 54.700
531.1 55.200
531.1 55.400
531.1 55.800
531.1 56.200
531.1 56.700
531.1 56.770
Method Reported
Value
531.1 56.900
531.1 57.000
531.1 57.800
531.1 59.700
531.1 60.300
531.1 60.400
531.1 61.100
Method Reported
Value
531.1 62.900
531.1 63.300
531.1 65.200
531.1 65.900
531.1 69.300
531.1 71.500
531.1 71.700
Water Study: 41
True Value: 43.7 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
531.1 10.800
531.1 24.800
531.1 28.200
531.1 32.100
531.1 32.100
Method Reported
Value
531.1 36.050
531.1 36.800
531.1 37.320
531.1 40.000
531.1 40.300
Method Reported
Value
531.1 40.400
531.1 40.500
531.1 40.800
531.1 41.100
531.1 41.300
Method Reported
Value
531.1 41.300
531.1 41.800
531.1 41.800
531.1 42.500
531.1 42.600
Method Reported
Value
531.1 42.700
531.1 42.900
531.1 43.000
531.1 43.500
531.1 44.900
Method Reported
Value
531.1 45.400
531.1 46.900
531.1 47.000
531.1 52.400

Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-36
Final - March 2003

-------
 Carbon Tetrachloride
Water Study: 24
True Value: 4.56 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 3.420
524.1 3.500
502.1 3.530
524.2 3.583
524.1 3.590
524.1 3.613
502.2 3.680
502.2 3.740
502.2 3.780
524.2 3.790
Method Reported
Value
524.1 3.840
502.2 3.840
524.2 3.860
502.1 3.900
524.2 3.980
502.2 4.000
502.1 4.000
502.2 4.030
524.2 4.090
524.2 4.180
Method Reported
Value
502.2 4.180
524.1 4.180
other 4.300
524.2 4.310
524.2 4.330
502.2 4.400
502.2 4.410
502.2 4.420
524.2 4.460
524.2 4.490
Method Reported
Value
502.2 4.490
502.2 4.490
502.1 4.500
524.2 4.600
other 4.700
524.2 4.700
524.2 4.780
502.2 4.780
524.2 4.800
524.2 4.850
Method Reported
Value
502.2 4.880
502.2 4.890
502.2 4.900
502.2 4.960
502.1 4.970
502.2 5.100
502.1 5.200
524.2 5.400
502.2 5.400
524.1 5.450
Method Reported
Value
524.2 5.480
502.2 5.600
524.2 5.620
524.2 5.779
502.2 6.500
524.2 15.400




Water Study: 25
True Value: 9. 18 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.1 5.800
502.2 7.250
502.2 7.300
524.1 8.240
502.2 8.270
502.2 8.360
502.2 8.400
Method Reported
Value
524.1 8.500
502.2 8.600
524.2 8.790
524.2 8.880
524.2 8.890
524.2 8.966
502.2 9.020
Method Reported
Value
524.2 9.050
502.2 9.050
502.1 9.160
524.2 9.300
502.2 9.350
502.2 9.350
502.2 9.370
Method Reported
Value
524.2 9.440
502.1 9.650
524.2 9.680
502.2 9.700
524.2 9.930
524.1 10.000
other 10.000
Method Reported
Value
524.2 10.100
other 10.110
524.2 10.140
502.2 10.400
502.2 10.900
524.2 11.000
524.1 11.300
Method Reported
Value
502.2 13.000
other 17.500





Water Study: 26
True Value: 16.7 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 12.000
502.2 12.300
502.2 12.900
524.2 13.400
502.2 13.500
502.2 13.900
502.2 13.900
524.2 14.700
other 14.700
502.2 15.100
Method Reported
Value
524.1 15.200
502.2 15.400
524.2 15.520
524.2 15.800
502.2 15.800
502.2 15.900
524.2 16.000
502.2 16.040
other 16.300
502.1 16.380
Method Reported
Value
524.2 16.400
524.2 16.430
524.2 16.700
524.1 16.700
524.1 16.800
502.2 16.900
524.2 17.000
524.2 17.100
524.2 17.100
524.2 17.200
Method Reported
Value
524.2 17.200
502.1 17.300
502.2 17.400
524.2 17.500
524.2 17.600
502.2 17.600
502.2 17.600
524.1 17.900
502.1 18.000
502.1 18.200
Method Reported
Value
502.2 18.200
502.2 18.400
524.2 18.500
502.2 18.500
524.2 18.600
524.2 18.800
524.2 19.000
502.2 19.200
524.2 19.500
524.2 19.700
Method Reported
Value
502.1 19.700
524.1 19.700
524.2 19.800
502.2 20.300
502.1 21.300
502.2 21.320
502.2 21.400
502.2 23.700
524.2 25.300

Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-37
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 27
True Value: 8.48 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 3.930
other 5.750
502.2 6.280
502.2 6.940
524.2 6.990
502.2 7.200
524.2 7.300
Method Reported
Value
502.2 7.540
524.2 7.590
502.2 7.700
502.2 7.900
502.2 7.900
524.2 8.160
524.2 8.180
Method Reported
Value
502.1 8.270
502.2 8.370
502.2 8.430
524.2 8.490
502.2 8.520
502.2 8.540
524.2 8.570
Method Reported
Value
524.2 8.600
502.2 8.600
524.2 8.640
524.2 8.680
524.2 8.740
502.2 8.950
other 9.100
Method Reported
Value
502.2 9.220
524.1 9.220
524.2 9.890
other 9.990
502.2 10.100
524.2 10.470
502.2 10.800
Method Reported
Value
524.1 11.300
502.2 11.400





Water Study: 29
True Value: 10.4 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 7.500
other 8.600
502.2 8.670
524.2 8.880
502.2 9.170
502.2 9.290
Method Reported
Value
502.2 9.540
other 9.580
other 9.640
524.2 9.820
524.2 10.000
502.2 10.000
Method Reported
Value
524.2 10.200
502.2 10.200
502.2 10.600
502.2 10.610
524.2 10.700
524.2 10.700
Method Reported
Value
524.1 10.900
524.2 10.900
502.2 11.200
524.2 11.200
502.2 11.400
524.2 11.400
Method Reported
Value
other 11.440
502.2 11.500
524.2 12.000
524.2 12.100
524.1 12.300
502.2 12.410
Method Reported
Value
524.2 12.500
502.2 12.890
524.2 13.400
502.2 13.400
502.2 13.700
502.2 14.400
Water Study: 30
True Value: 6.46 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.1 4.160
524.2 5.150
other 5.260
524.2 5.400
524.2 5.430
502.2 5.740
524.2 5.760
524.2 5.770
524.2 5.800
524.2 5.800
Method Reported
Value
524.2 5.830
502.2 5.840
502.2 5.900
524.2 5.940
502.2 5.950
524.2 6.010
502.2 6.100
502.2 6.130
524.2 6.150
524.2 6.160
Method Reported
Value
524.2 6.220
524.2 6.240
502.2 6.250
524.1 6.310
502.2 6.340
502.1 6.340
502.2 6.360
502.2 3.391
524.2 6.400
502.2 6.400
Method Reported
Value
502.2 6.440
524.2 6.500
524.2 6.550
other 6.560
502.2 6.600
502.2 6.600
502.2 6.650
502.2 6.700
524.2 6.700
524.1 6.730
Method Reported
Value
524.2 6.860
524.2 6.900
other 6.960
524.1 6.990
502.2 7.000
524.2 7.000
524.2 7.020
502.2 7.050
502.2 7.060
502.2 7.150
Method Reported
Value
other 7.198
524.2 7.200
524.2 7.360
524.2 7.400
502.2 7.580
502.2 7.620
524.2 7.700
502.1 8.530
502.2 10.250

Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-38
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 31
True Value: 8.69 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 5.670
502.2 6.540
502.2 6.930
502.2 6.949
524.1 7.040
502.1 7.360
Method Reported
Value
502.2 7.390
524.2 7.620
524.2 7.700
524.2 7.860
524.2 7.990
524.2 8.010
Method Reported
Value
502.2 8.050
524.2 8.100
502.2 8.220
502.2 8.490
524.2 8.500
524.2 8.520
Method Reported
Value
502.1 8.550
502.1 8.560
502.2 8.710
524.2 9.000
524.2 9.020
524.2 9.060
Method Reported
Value
524.2 9.100
502.2 9.140
502.2 9.170
other 9.240
524.2 9.400
524.2 9.480
Method Reported
Value
502.2 9.680
524.2 9.720
502.2 10.100
502.1 10.400
502.2 10.500
502.2 11.000
Water Study: 32
True Value: 14.5 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 10.800
524.2 11.000
502.1 11.100
502.2 11.600
502.2 11.900
502.2 12.300
524.2 12.700
502.2 12.800
524.2 12.800
524.2 12.900
502.2 13.000
Method Reported
Value
524.2 13.400
524.2 13.400
502.2 13.400
502.2 13.500
524.2 13.600
524.2 13.600
524.2 13.700
502.1 13.700
524.2 13.800
502.2 13.800
502.2 13.800
Method Reported
Value
524.2 13.800
502.2 13.800
502.2 13.900
502.2 13.900
502.2 14.000
502.2 14.000
other 14.000
524.2 14.200
502.1 14.200
502.2 14.300
502.2 14.400
Method Reported
Value
other 14.4000
524.2 14.500
524.2 14.500
524.2 14.530
524.2 14.580
524.2 14.600
524.2 14.600
524.2 14.700
502.1 14.800
524.2 14.930
524.2 15.100
Method Reported
Value
524.2 15.100
502.2 15.200
524.2 15.230
502.2 15.300
524.2 15.340
502.2 15.400
502.2 15.500
524.2 15.600
524.2 15.700
524.2 15.900
other 15.900
Method Reported
Value
502.2 15.900
524.2 16.100
502.2 16.200
524.2 16.200
524.1 16.700
524.2 17.700
524.2 17.700
524.2 17.900



Water Study: 33
True Value: 13.4 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 9.460
other 10.530
502.2 10.800
502.1 11.000
502.2 11.570
502.2 11.700
Method Reported
Value
524.1 12.100
502.2 12.600
502.2 12.600
524.2 12.690
502.2 12.700
524.2 12.970
Method Reported
Value
502.2 13.000
524.2 13.100
502.2 13.100
524.2 13.500
524.2 13.600
502.2 13.600
Method Reported
Value
502.2 13.700
502.2 13.800
524.2 14.000
524.2 14.000
524.2 14.200
502.2 14.500
Method Reported
Value
524.2 14.600
524.2 14.600
524.2 14.600
502.2 14.900
524.2 15.030
502.2 15.100
Method Reported
Value
502.1 15.400
524.2 16.000
524.2 16.100
524.2 21.400


Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-39
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 34
True Value: 6.27 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 4.710
524.2 4.750
524.2 4.960
502.2 4.980
502.2 5.010
502.2 5.450
502.1 5.460
502.2 5.490
other 5.500
502.1 5.530
Method Reported
Value
502.2 5.560
524.2 5.600
524.2 5.650
502.2 5.660
524.2 5.720
502.2 5.728
502.2 5.760
524.2 5.820
502.2 5.840
524.2 5.850
Method Reported
Value
524.2 5.860
524.2 5.880
524.2 5.910
524.2 5.960
502.2 5.960
502.2 5.970
524.2 6.000
524.2 6.000
502.2 6.030
502.2 6.070
Method Reported
Value
524.2 6.080
502.2 6.090
other 6.100
502.2 6.170
502.2 6.240
524.2 6.250
524.2 6.260
524.2 6.290
502.2 6.340
524.2 6.460
Method Reported
Value
502.2 6.490
524.2 6.550
524.2 6.580
524.2 6.600
524.2 6.600
502.2 6.620
502.2 6.630
502.2 6.640
524.2 6.800
502.2 6.800
Method Reported
Value
524.2 6.800
502.2 6.910
524.2 7.010
502.2 7.030
524.2 7.130
524.2 7.200
502.2 7.210
524.2 7.380
524.2 7.670
524.2 7.830
Water Study: 35
True Value: 10.8 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 6.990
502.2 8.500
502.2 8.563
other 9.958
502.2 9.960
524.2 10.000
Method Reported
Value
524.2 10.000
524.2 10.100
502.2 10.100
502.2 10.200
524.2 10.200
524.2 10.300
Method Reported
Value
502.2 10.380
502.2 10.500
502.2 10.650
524.2 10.700
502.2 10.700
524.2 10.900
Method Reported
Value
524.2 11.000
524.2 11.000
524.2 11.160
524.2 11.200
502.2 11.500
524.2 11.500
Method Reported
Value
524.2 11.700
524.2 11.800
502.2 11.800
502.2 11.900
502.2 12.000
524.2 12.000
Method Reported
Value
other 12.200
524.2 12.200
524.2 12.490
502.2 13.500


Water Study: 36
True Value: 12.6 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 9.760
502.2 10.300
502.2 10.400
502.2 10.600
524.2 10.700
502.2 10.900
502.2 10.900
524.2 11.300
524.2 11.400
502.2 11.400
Method Reported
Value
502.2 11.500
524.2 11.500
524.2 11.500
524.2 11.530
524.2 11.600
502.2 11.600
524.2 11.600
524.2 11.700
524.2 11.730
524.2 11.800
Method Reported
Value
524.2 11.800
524.2 11.900
524.2 11.900
524.2 11.900
502.2 11.900
502.2 11.900
502.2 12.000
524.2 12.000
524.2 12.000
502.2 12.100
Method Reported
Value
502.2 12.200
502.2 12.200
524.2 12.200
524.2 12.300
502.2 12.320
524.2 12.400
502.2 12.400
524.2 12.500
524.2 12.600
524.2 12.700
Method Reported
Value
524.2 12.730
502.2 12.800
524.2 12.860
502.2 12.900
524.2 12.900
524.2 12.900
502.2 13.000
524.2 13.000
502.2 13.200
524.2 13.200
Method Reported
Value
524.2 13.400
524.2 13.500
other 13.600
524.2 13.700
other 13.700
502.2 14.000
524.2 14.570
other 15.000
524.2 15.630

Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-40
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 37
True Value: 12.7 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 10.200
524.2 10.600
502.2 11.000
502.2 11.300
524.2 11.300
502.2 11.400
524.2 11.730
524.2 11.900
Method Reported
Value
502.2 12.100
502.2 12.100
524.2 12.200
502.2 12.200
524.2 12.200
524.2 12.300
524.2 12.300
502.2 12.400
Method Reported
Value
524.2 12.500
524.2 12.500
502.2 12.500
524.2 12.500
524.2 12.600
524.2 12.600
502.2 12.700
502.2 12.700
Method Reported
Value
524.2 12.800
502.2 12.800
524.2 12.900
524.2 12.900
524.2 13.000
524.2 13.100
502.2 13.300
524.2 13.300
Method Reported
Value
524.2 13.420
524.2 13.600
524.2 13.820
502.2 13.900
502.2 14.200
other 14.300
other 14.600
524.2 14.800
Method Reported
Value
524.2 15.200
524.2 15.300
524.2 16.000
502.2 16.400
524.2 19.400
502.2 19.900
524.2 27.600

Water Study: 38
True Value: 15.6 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 10.100
502.2 12.200
524.2 12.700
502.2 12.800
524.2 12.900
502.2 12.900
524.2 12.900
524.2 13.100
502.2 13.600
Method Reported
Value
other 13.700
other 13.800
524.2 14.100
524.2 14.200
502.2 14.200
502.2 14.600
524.2 14.600
502.2 14.860
524.2 14.900
Method Reported
Value
502.2 14.900
502.2 15.000
524.2 15.000
524.2 15.030
502.2 15.300
524.2 15.300
524.2 15.400
502.2 15.400
524.2 15.500
Method Reported
Value
502.2 15.500
502.2 15.500
524.2 15.600
524.2 15.600
524.2 15.600
524.2 15.600
502.2 15.700
502.2 15.700
524.2 16.000
Method Reported
Value
524.2 16.000
502.2 16.100
524.2 16.200
524.2 16.400
524.2 16.400
524.2 16.400
524.2 16.500
502.2 16.500
524.2 16.700
Method Reported
Value
524.2 16.800
502.2 16.900
524.2 17.200
524.2 17.400
524.2 17.700
524.2 18.000
524.2 18.200
524.2 18.680
524.2 18.800
Water Study: 39
True Value: 19.2 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 14.300
502.2 14.800
524.2 15.200
502.2 15.800
524.2 16.000
524.2 16.400
502.2 16.700
Method Reported
Value
524.2 17.900
502.2 17.900
524.2 17.900
524.2 18.000
502.2 18.000
524.2 18.200
502.2 18.300
Method Reported
Value
524.2 18.500
524.2 18.500
524.2 18.800
524.2 18.880
502.2 18.900
502.2 19.000
524.2 19.100
Method Reported
Value
524.2 19.200
524.2 19.300
502.2 19.500
502.2 19.700
524.2 19.700
502.2 20.000
524.2 20.000
Method Reported
Value
524.2 20.100
524.2 20.100
502.2 20.100
502.2 20.200
524.2 20.700
524.2 20.700
524.2 21.500
Method Reported
Value
524.2 21.500
524.2 22.000
524.2 22.500
524.2 23.100
524.2 23.300
524.2 34.900
524.2 65.140
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-41
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 40
True Value: 8.90 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 6.380
502.2 6.800
524.2 6.800
524.2 6.920
524.2 6.980
524.2 7.530
524.2 7.580
other 7.870
524.2 7.910
502.2 8.000
Method Reported
Value
524.2 8.050
524.2 8.110
524.2 8.150
524.2 8.160
524.2 8.200
524.2 8.200
524.2 8.270
524.2 8.270
524.2 8.360
524.2 8.400
Method Reported
Value
524.2 8.400
524.2 8.420
524.2 8.520
524.2 8.560
502.2 8.580
524.2 8.640
524.2 8.640
524.2 8.680
524.2 8.680
502.2 8.680
Method Reported
Value
502.2 8.720
524.2 8.730
502.2 8.760
524.2 8.760
502.2 8.810
524.2 8.900
524.2 8.950
502.2 8.970
524.2 8.970
502.2 9.060
Method Reported
Value
502.2 9.100
other 9.140
502.2 9.150
524.2 9.160
502.2 9.210
524.2 9.240
524.2 9.260
524.2 9.320
502.2 9.360
524.2 9.670
Method Reported
Value
502.2 9.970
502.2 10.000
524.2 10.400
524.2 10.600
524.2 10.680
524.2 11.500
524.2 20.700



Water Study: 41
True Value: 14.2 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 11.400
524.2 11.600
502.2 11.800
502.2 12.200
524.2 12.400
524.2 12.500
524.2 12.500
Method Reported
Value
524.2 12.600
502.2 12.600
502.2 12.700
524.2 12.900
524.2 13.100
524.2 13.400
524.2 13.400
Method Reported
Value
524.2 13.500
502.2 13.600
524.2 13.600
524.2 13.800
524.2 13.800
524.2 13.800
524.2 13.800
Method Reported
Value
524.2 13.900
524.2 14.000
502.2 14.000
524.2 14.100
524.2 14.200
524.2 14.300
other 14.300
Method Reported
Value
524.2 14.300
502.2 14.600
524.2 14.700
524.2 14.720
524.2 14.800
502.2 15.500
502.2 15.500
Method Reported
Value
524.2 15.800
524.2 15.800
502.2 15.900
524.2 16.700
502.2 16.800


 Chlordane

 Water Study: 24a
 True Value: 1.32 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
other 0.102
other 0.234
505 0.410
505 0.736
other 0.860
505 0.881
505 0.936
Method Reported
Value
505 0.954
other 1.000
505 1.000
other 1.040
other 1.040
other 1.070
other 1.094
Method Reported
Value
other 1.100
other 1.120
505 1.120
505 1.130
505 1.150
other 1.160
other 1.170
Method Reported
Value
505 1.180
other 1.200
other 1.210
505 1.230
505 1.280
505 1.280
other 1.320
Method Reported
Value
505 1.332
505 1.370
505 1.380
505 1.380
other 1.400
other 1.400
505 1.408
Method Reported
Value
505 1.440
505 1.470
other 1.500
505 1.950
505 554.000


Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-42
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 24b
True Value: 4.86 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
other 0.378
other 0.854
505 0.978
505 2.280
505 3.140
other 3.170
505 3.280
Method Reported
Value
505 3.490
other 3.780
505 3.790
other 3.930
other 4.120
505 4.120
505 4.130
Method Reported
Value
other 4.190
other 4.280
505 4.297
505 4.311
other 4.319
505 4.330
other 4.420
Method Reported
Value
other 4.470
other 4.500
other 4.597
505 4.610
505 4.640
505 4.780
other 4.790
Method Reported
Value
other 4.800
505 4.800
505 4.830
505 4.850
other 4.870
other 5.000
505 5.004
Method Reported
Value
other 5.270
505 5.450
505 5.530
505 7.920
505 3680.000


Water Study: 25a
True Value: 3.30 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
508 1.310
508 2.300
505 2.350
508 2.530
Method Reported
Value
other 2.660
508 2.700
508 2.760
other 2.770
Method Reported
Value
other 2.780
508 2.810
505 2.820
508 2.840
Method Reported
Value
508 2.910
505 3.020
508 3.060
other 3.080
Method Reported
Value
508 3.221
other 3.290
505 3.340
508 3.360
Method Reported
Value
508 3.370
505 4.010


Water Study: 25b
True Value: 12.6 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
505 7.320
508 8.300
other 9.140
508 9.450
Method Reported
Value
505 9.600
508 9.770
other 10.300
other 10.400
Method Reported
Value
other 10.530
508 11.000
508 11.400
508 11.700
Method Reported
Value
508 11.730
508 12.100
508 12.100
508 12.200
Method Reported
Value
508 12.400
508 12.500
other 12.900
505 13.290
Method Reported
Value
505 14.200
505 14.900


Water Study: 26b
True Value: 9.6 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
other 2.780
505 7.251
other 7.400
505 7.520
other 7.540
505 7.540
505 7.670
Method Reported
Value
other 7.690
505 8.010
other 8.030
other 8.070
505 8.163
508 8.550
525.1 8.552
Method Reported
Value
508 8.610
other 8.617
other 8.660
508 8.700
505 8.740
505 8.780
508 8.840
Method Reported
Value
508 9.030
505 9.079
505 9.270
508 9.530
other 9.540
508 9.550
505 9.610
Method Reported
Value
508 9.720
508 9.760
508 9.830
508 9.830
505 9.850
other 9.870
505 10.300
Method Reported
Value
505 11.100
508 12.000
505 12.100
508 12.500



Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-43
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 26a
True Value: 2.70 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
other 1.870
505 2.060
other 2.110
505 2.179
525.1 2.200
other 2.240
other 2.270
Method Reported
Value
other 2.280
505 2.360
508 2.380
508 2.400
505 2.420
508 2.430
508 2.460
Method Reported
Value
other 2.575
other 2.580
other 2.580
508 2.630
505 2.670
508 2.670
505 2.680
Method Reported
Value
508 2.690
505 2.710
508 2.710
508 2.720
505 2.760
508 2.840
505 2.877
Method Reported
Value
505 3.000
other 3.020
505 3.020
505 3.130
other 3.200
505 3.200
505 3.450
Method Reported
Value
505 3.615
508 3.740
508 3.960
508 32.600



Water Study: 27
True Value: 1.84 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
505 1.220
other 1.360
508 1.370
508 1.410
508 1.470
Method Reported
Value
508 1.500
other 1.595
508 1.600
other 1.610
505 1.620
Method Reported
Value
505 1.760
508 1.840
508 1.850
508 1.860
505 1.860
Method Reported
Value
508 1.899
508 1.910
other 1.931
508 1.960
other 1.970
Method Reported
Value
other 1.980
508 2.010
508 2.020
508 2.080
505 2.260
Method Reported
Value
other 2.420
508 2.600
508 2.800


Water Study: 29
True Value: 0.833 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
508 0.646
508 0.677
508 0.688
508 0.696
505 0.720
Method Reported
Value
508 0.727
505 0.748
508 0.760
other 0.763
other 0.767
Method Reported
Value
508 0.782
508 0.785
508 0.802
508 0.806
other 0.810
Method Reported
Value
other 0.830
505 0.830
508 0.841
508 0.894
other 0.939
Method Reported
Value
508 1.060
other 1.120
505 1.830
508 4.710
other 5.739
Method Reported
Value





Water Study: 30
True Value: 4.20 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
505 1.340
505 1.700
other 1.865
508 2.310
508 3.060
508 3.100
508 3.180
508 3.230
505 3.260
Method Reported
Value
505 3.280
508 3.341
508 3.350
508 3.420
other 3.640
508 3.690
505 3.700
508 3.710
other 3.730
Method Reported
Value
508 3.790
505 3.810
508 3.870
508 3.870
505 3.880
508 3.880
508 3.920
508 3.980
other 3.990
Method Reported
Value
508 3.990
508 4.000
other 4.000
505 4.080
508 4.200
other 4.230
other 4.240
508 4.280
508 4.290
Method Reported
Value
other 4.290
other 4.300
508 4.340
508 4.380
other 4.490
505 4.490
508 4.550
other 4.911
508 4.930
Method Reported
Value
other 5.080
505 5.150
505 5.930
508 5.970





Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-44
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 31
True Value: 5.16 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
508 0.787
505 2.340
508 2.360
508 2.400
508 2.660
Method Reported
Value
508 3.160
508 3.480
505 3.610
508 3.780
508 3.810
Method Reported
Value
508 4.040
508 4.100
505 4.370
508 4.464
508 4.500
Method Reported
Value
508 4.539
508 4.570
508 4.600
508 4.730
508 4.850
Method Reported
Value
505 4.890
508 5.000
505 5.050
other 5.130
508 5.240
Method Reported
Value
508 5.240
508 5.280
other 5.650
508 5.800
other 6.360
Water Study: 32
True Value: 5.33 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
508 1.010
525.1 1.060
525.1 1.348
525.1 1.740
508 2.190
508 2.580
525.1 2.920
505 3.790
508 3.800
508 3.870
Method Reported
Value
508 4.060
508 4.109
505 4.136
508 4.190
other 4.250
508 4.290
508 4.310
508 4.370
508 4.500
508 4.520
Method Reported
Value
other 4.560
508 4.600
508 4.610
508 4.690
508 4.780
508 4.840
508 4.850
508 4.860
505 4.890
508 4.940
Method Reported
Value
508 4.9560
508 4.980
508 5.020
508 5.100
505 5.100
505 5.160
508 5.180
508 5.220
508 5.230
508 5.300
Method Reported
Value
other 5.310
508 5.360
508 5.400
505 5.450
505 5.500
other 5.570
505 5.620
505 5.630
508 5.640
508 5.680
Method Reported
Value
505 5.930
505 6.090
508 6.320
505 6.490
505 7.800
505 8.010




Water Study: 33
True Value: 2.76 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
525.1 0.680
508 1.720
505 2.130
508 2.180
525.1 2.270
508 2.290
Method Reported
Value
508 2.350
508 2.360
525.1 2.370
508 2.370
508 2.400
505 2.400
Method Reported
Value
508 2.500
508 2.540
508 2.600
508 2.610
505 2.620
508 2.620
Method Reported
Value
508 2.630
508 2.640
other 2.690
508 2.730
508 2.730
508 2.872
Method Reported
Value
505 2.900
508 2.940
508 2.950
508 3.000
508 3.200
508 3.460
Method Reported
Value
505 3.660
other 3.750
525.1 3.900
508 4.550
508 4.630
505 6.180
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-45
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 34
True Value: 7.26 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
505 0.740
525.1 1.250
525.1 3.460
508 4.390
508 4.640
508 4.990
508 5.080
508 5.210
508 5.220
Method Reported
Value
508 5.595
508 5.630
505 5.760
508 5.790
other 6.000
508 6.010
508 6.090
505 6.130
508 6.190
Method Reported
Value
508 6.270
508 6.580
508 6.580
505 6.680
525.1 6.690
508 6.740
505 6.800
508 6.810
508 6.820
Method Reported
Value
508 6.840
505 6.850
508 6.860
508 6.910
508 6.920
505 6.930
other 6.970
508 7.060
508 7.110
Method Reported
Value
505 7.349
other 7.350
505 7.380
508 7.390
505 7.470
525.1 7.520
508 7.590
505 7.700
505 7.979
Method Reported
Value
508 8.040
508 8.070
508 8.410
505 8.410
505 10.400
508 10.670
508 13.100


Water Study: 35
True Value: 13.6 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
508 2.930
525.1 9.000
508 9.590
508 9.595
505 10.100
508 10.800
Method Reported
Value
508 11.000
505 11.100
508 11.600
508 11.620
508 11.700
508 11.800
Method Reported
Value
508 11.800
505 12.200
508 12.300
508 12.400
505 12.600
505 13.400
Method Reported
Value
505 13.400
505 13.430
508 13.500
508 13.700
508 13.700
508 13.900
Method Reported
Value
508 14.400
508 14.600
508 14.700
508 14.900
508 15.700
508 17.530
Method Reported
Value
505 17.630
508 17.700
other 20.200



Water Study: 36
True Value: 16.7 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
525.2 5.300
other 7.000
508 10.000
508 11.500
508 12.200
505 12.400
508.1 12.400
508 12.900
508 13.100
Method Reported
Value
508 13.200
508 13.200
508.1 13.300
508 13.500
508 14.000
508.1 14.000
508 14.000
508 14.000
508 14.500
Method Reported
Value
508 15.300
508 15.400
525.2 15.400
505 15.500
508 15.600
508 15.700
508 15.900
505 16.000
508 16.000
Method Reported
Value
505 16.100
505 16.100
508.1 16.200
508 16.300
505 16.400
other 16.410
505 16.480
505 16.500
508 16.500
Method Reported
Value
505 16.600
508 16.600
508 16.600
508 16.700
508.1 16.800
505 17.300
505 17.600
505 17.900
505 17.920
Method Reported
Value
508 18.800
508 18.900
508 19.000
other 21.440
505 22.400
508 24.200
525.2 24.500


Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-46
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 37
True Value: 4.44 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
508 0.679
505 1.159
other 1.260
508 3.270
508 3.420
508 3.650
508 3.670
other 3.780
Method Reported
Value
505 3.800
508 3.800
508 3.840
508 3.900
505 3.950
508 3.990
508.1 4.010
508 4.160
Method Reported
Value
508 4.170
508 4.170
508 4.200
508 4.300
508 4.300
508 4.350
508 4.350
508 4.360
Method Reported
Value
508 4.370
505 4.450
505 4.450
other 4.470
525.2 4.520
508.1 4.570
508 4.590
505 4.630
Method Reported
Value
505 4.650
505 4.800
505 4.910
508 4.930
505 4.940
508 4.970
508.1 5.100
508 5.260
Method Reported
Value
525.2 5.390
505 5.640
508 5.920
505 5.970
525.2 6.200
508 6.420


Water Study: 38
True Value: 8.20 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
525.2 2.960
508 4.800
508 4.830
other 5.330
508 5.660
508.1 5.680
508 5.890
508 6.118
508 6.130
Method Reported
Value
508 6.150
508.1 6.400
508 6.420
508 6.530
508 6.720
508 6.760
508 6.870
508 7.080
508.1 7.180
Method Reported
Value
525.2 7.220
508 7.240
508 7.290
508 7.490
505 7.490
525.2 7.500
508 7.650
505 7.720
508 7.800
Method Reported
Value
508 7.900
508 7.950
508 7.960
508 7.990
525.2 8.040
505 8.060
508.1 8.100
505 8.110
508 8.210
Method Reported
Value
508 8.250
508 8.280
505 8.360
508 8.430
505 8.470
other 8.710
505 8.720
508 8.730
other 8.940
Method Reported
Value
508.1 9.150
525.2 9.150
505 9.200
508 9.610
505 10.100
505 10.290



Water Study: 39
True Value: 3.57 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
508 0.000
other 0.603
508.1 2.790
508.1 2.820
508 2.840
508.1 2.910
508 2.930
Method Reported
Value
508 3.020
508 3.200
508 3.250
508.1 3.255
508 3.270
508 3.430
525.2 3.430
Method Reported
Value
508 3.430
505 3.500
505 3.520
505 3.530
505 3.540
508 3.600
508 3.680
Method Reported
Value
508 3.780
505 3.820
525.2 3.880
508 3.940
508 3.950
508 3.950
505 3.970
Method Reported
Value
505 3.980
508 3.980
508 3.980
525.2 4.040
508 4.078
505 4.080
508.1 4.090
Method Reported
Value
525.2 4.360
508 4.510
505 4.560
525.2 4.620
other 5.030
508 5.030

Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-47
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 40
True Value: 11.8 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
525.2 5.280
508 6.930
508 6.960
508 7.580
508 8.000
508.1 8.130
508 8.290
508.1 8.560
505 9.210
508 9.410
Method Reported
Value
508 9.980
508 10.000
508 10.200
508 10.300
508.1 10.400
525.2 10.500
508 10.600
508 10.600
508 10.600
508 10.600
Method Reported
Value
508 10.700
508 10.800
508.1 10.870
508 10.900
525.2 11.000
other 11.200
508 11.200
505 11.300
other 11.330
505 11.500
Method Reported
Value
508 11.700
508 11.700
505 11.800
505 11.900
508 12.100
525.2 12.200
508 12.300
525.2 12.500
508 12.700
508 12.700
Method Reported
Value
508 12.800
505 13.000
505 13.200
505 13.400
505 13.400
508.1 13.400
508 13.700
508 13.700
525.2 13.900
525.2 14.200
Method Reported
Value
508 14.400
other 14.600
505 15.270
508 16.300
other 17.500
508.1 21.000




Water Study: 41
True Value: 2.90 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
508.1 1.140
508.1 1.740
508 1.780
508 2.110
508 2.140
508.1 2.160
508 2.220
Method Reported
Value
508 2.400
508 2.420
505 2.420
508 2.430
508 2.470
525.2 2.470
525.2 2.500
Method Reported
Value
508.1 2.540
508 2.540
508.1 2.550
508 2.560
508 2.630
508 2.710
508 2.720
Method Reported
Value
508 2.740
508 2.770
525.2 2.830
525.2 2.850
525.2 2.870
505 2.910
508 2.930
Method Reported
Value
505 2.960
other 2.990
508.1 2.990
505 3.040
505 3.040
508 3.083
525.2 3.220
Method Reported
Value
505 3.330
other 3.410
505 3.420
505 3.560
505 4.180
508 4.740

 Chromium
Water Study: 24a
True Value: 127 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
200.7A 12.800
218.1 26.600
218.2 86.000
218.2 90.800
218.2 93.000
218.2 111.000
218.2 113.000
218.2 113.000
200.7A 114.000
218.2 115.000
218.1 117.000
Method Reported
Value
218.2 117.000
218.2 117.700
other 119.000
218.2 119.300
218.2 120.000
200.7A 122.000
218.1 122.000
218.1 123.000
200.7A 123.000
218.2 124.000
200.7A 125.000
Method Reported
Value
218.2 125.000
218.2 125.000
218.2 125.000
218.2 126.000
other 126.500
200.7A 127.000
200.7A 127.000
200.7A 127.000
218.2 128.000
218.1 128.000
200.7A 128.000
Method Reported
Value
218.2 128.000
200.7A 128.000
218.2 129.000
200.7A 129.000
200.7A 129.000
218.1 130.000
218.2 130.000
other 130.000
218.2 130.000
200.7A 130.200
other 131.000
Method Reported
Value
200.7A 132.000
218.2 132.000
218.2 132.000
218.2 132.500
218.2 132.900
218.1 133.000
218.2 133.000
218.2 133.700
218.2 133.900
218.2 134.000
218.2 137.000
Method Reported
Value
218.1 137.800
218.2 138.000
218.1 140.000
218.1 140.000
218.2 146.000
other 153.000
218.1 164.000




Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-48
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 24b
True Value: 25.5ug/L
Method Reported
Value
218.2 18.500
218.2 19.000
218.2 20.000
218.1 21.000
200.7A 21.800
218.2 22.500
other 22.900
218.2 23.000
218.2 23.200
218.2 23.500
218.1 23.700
Method Reported
Value
218.2 23.700
218.2 23.800
200.7A 24.000
218.1 24.000
200.7A 24.100
218.1 24.100
200.7A 24.300
218.2 24.500
200.7A 24.600
200.7A 24.600
218.2 24.700
Method Reported
Value
218.2 24.800
218.2 24.800
200.7A 24.900
218.2 25.000
200.7A 25.100
other 25.200
218.2 25.200
other 25.300
200.7A 25.400
218.2 25.500
218.2 25.700
Method Reported
Value
218.2 25.700
200.7A 25.800
200.7A 25.800
218.1 25.900
other 26.000
200.7A 26.000
218.2 26.000
200.7A 26.000
218.2 26.000
218.2 26.060
200.7A 26.100
Method Reported
Value
218.1 26.100
218.2 26.200
218.1 26.400
218.2 26.400
218.1 26.400
218.2 26.600
218.2 26.800
218.2 26.800
218.2 27.200
218.2 27.300
218.2 27.500
Method Reported
Value
218.2 28.000
218.2 28.000
218.2 28.800
other 29.000
218.1 29.000
218.1 32.000
218.1 126.000




Water Study: 25a
True Value: 15.0 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
218.1 1.700
218.2 3.070
218.1 11.000
218.2 13.000
218.2 13.000
218.2 13.700
218.2 14.000
Method Reported
Value
218.2 14.000
218.1 14.000
218.2 14.000
218.2 14.200
218.2 14.380
218.1 14.500
218.2 14.500
Method Reported
Value
200.7A 14.600
200.7A 14.800
200.7A 14.800
218.2 14.800
218.2 15.000
200.7A 15.000
other 15.000
Method Reported
Value
200. 7A 15.000
218.1 15.200
218.2 15.200
218.2 15.200
218.2 15.400
200.7A 15.400
218.1 15.400
Method Reported
Value
218.2 15.400
218.2 15.500
218.2 15.500
218.2 15.700
218.2 15.900
218.2 15.910
218.2 16.000
Method Reported
Value
other 16.000
218.2 16.070
218.2 16.200
218.2 16.300
200.7A 16.400
200.7A 16.400

Water Study: 25b
True Value: 60 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
218.1 7.300
218.2 11.000
218.2 52.000
218.2 52.500
200.7A 54.800
218.2 55.000
200.7A 55.500
Method Reported
Value
218.2 56.500
218.1 57.000
218.1 57.100
218.1 57.200
218.2 57.200
218.1 58.000
218.2 58.210
Method Reported
Value
218.2 58.800
200.7A 58.900
218.2 59.500
218.2 59.600
218.2 59.700
200.7A 60.000
218.1 60.000
Method Reported
Value
218.1 60.700
218.2 60.900
218.2 61.000
218.2 61.000
218.2 61.000
other 61.200
218.2 61.200
Method Reported
Value
218.2 62.000
200.7A 62.000
218.2 62.100
200.7A 62.500
218.2 63.200
200.7A 63.300
218.2 63.900
Method Reported
Value
218.2 64.400
218.2 65.000
218.2 65.300
218.2 65.900
200.7A 66.200
218.2 66.300
other 68.000
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-49
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 26b
True Value: 94.6 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
other 0.094
218.2 77.500
200.7A 82.100
218.2 82.900
218.2 83.800
200.7A 84.000
218.2 84.900
218.2 84.900
218.2 87.000
218.2 87.500
200.7A 90.000
Method Reported
Value
200.7A 90.800
200.7A 91.000
218.2 91.190
218.1 91.400
218.2 91.700
other 91.900
200.7A 92.000
200.7A 92.400
218.1 92.400
218.2 92.500
200.7A 92.500
Method Reported
Value
218.1 92.500
218.2 92.900
218.1 93.000
218.2 93.000
218.2 93.100
other 93.300
218.2 93.480
200.7A 93.500
218.2 93.800
218.2 93.800
218.2 93.800
Method Reported
Value
218.2 94.500
218.1 94.600
218.2 94.700
200.7A 94.800
200.7A 94.800
218.2 94.900
218.2 95.000
218.2 95.800
200.7A 95.880
other 96.000
other 96.000
Method Reported
Value
218.1 96.000
200.7A 96.100
other 96.100
200.7A 96.200
218.1 96.600
200.7A 97.000
218.2 97.200
218.2 97.500
218.1 98.000
200.7A 98.600
218.2 100.000
Method Reported
Value
200.7A 101.000
218.2 102.000
218.1 102.000
218.2 103.000
200.7A 104.000
218.2 105.000
200.7A 107.000
218.1 113.600
218.1 114.000


Water Study: 26a
True Value: 50.2 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
other 0.054
218.2 39.100
200.7A 43.200
200.7A 44.000
218.2 45.000
218.2 45.550
218.2 45.780
218.2 46.000
218.2 46.000
218.2 46.100
200.7A 47.200
Method Reported
Value
200.7A 48.000
other 48.100
other 48.300
218.2 48.600
218.1 48.900
218.2 49.000
218.2 49.000
218.2 49.000
200.7A 49.000
218.2 49.200
218.2 49.300
Method Reported
Value
200.7A 49.300
200.7A 49.300
200.7A 49.500
200.7A 49.600
218.1 49.700
218.2 49.900
200.7A 50.000
200.7A 50.000
218.1 50.000
218.2 50.200
218.2 50.300
Method Reported
Value
other 50.300
218.2 50.300
218.2 50.400
218.2 50.400
218.2 50.400
218.2 50.500
218.2 50.800
200.7A 51.000
218.1 51.000
other 51.000
200.7A 51.000
Method Reported
Value
200. 7A 51.000
200.7A 51.160
218.2 51.300
200.7A 51.400
218.2 51.500
200.7A 51.700
other 52.000
218.2 52.000
218.2 52.100
200.7A 52.200
218.2 52.800
Method Reported
Value
218.1 53.000
218.1 53.400
218.1 54.000
218.2 54.000
218.1 54.300
200.7A 54.800
218.1 55.000
218.1 55.200
218.1 60.000


Water Study: 27
True Value: 75.3 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
218.2 19.100
218.2 56.500
200.7A 65.400
200.7A 65.900
218.2 70.000
218.2 70.600
Method Reported
Value
218.2 72.000
218.1 72.300
218.2 72.400
218.2 72.600
200.7A 72.600
200.7A 73.000
Method Reported
Value
200.7A 73.400
other 73.900
200.7A 74.000
200.7A 74.000
218.2 74.000
200.7A 74.200
Method Reported
Value
200.7A 74.700
200.7A 74.700
200.7A 74.900
218.2 75.300
218.2 75.400
200. 7A 75.800
Method Reported
Value
other 75.800
218.2 76.000
200.7A 76.600
218.2 77.200
218.1 78.000
other 79.000
Method Reported
Value
218.2 80.200
218.2 81.000
218.2 81.900
218.1 82.000
218.2 83.300

Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-50
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 29
True Value: 110 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
218.1 73.000
218.2 76.000
218.2 81.100
other 92.000
200.7A 101.000
200.7A 102.000
Method Reported
Value
218.2 102.500
200.7A 104.000
218.1 104.000
200.7A 105.000
218.2 106.000
218.2 106.000
Method Reported
Value
other 107.000
218.2 108.000
200.7A 108.000
other 108.000
200.7A 108.000
218.2 108.500
Method Reported
Value
200.7A 110.000
200.7A 110.000
218.2 110.000
200.7A 111.000
200.7A 111.000
200.7A 112.000
Method Reported
Value
218.2 112.000
200. 7A 113.000
other 113.000
218.2 113.000
218.1 115.000
218.2 115.000
Method Reported
Value
other 118.000
218.2 125.000
218.2 125.000



Water Study: 30
True Value: 200 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
218.2 40.000
218.1 116.000
218.2 175.000
other 175.000
218.2 178.000
200.7A 181.000
218.1 185.000
218.2 185.000
218.2 188.000
200.7A 188.500
218.2 189.000
Method Reported
Value
218.2 189.000
218.2 190.000
200.7A 192.000
200.7A 192.000
200.7A 192.800
218.1 195.000
other 195.000
218.2 195.000
218.1 195.000
218.2 195.000
218.2 197.000
Method Reported
Value
218.2 197.000
218.1 197.800
200.7A 198.000
218.2 198.000
200.7A 198.000
200.7A 198.000
200.7A 198.000
other 198.000
218.2 199.000
200.7A 199.000
other 199.000
Method Reported
Value
218.2 199.000
218.2 200.000
200.7A 200.000
200.7A 200.000
218.1 200.000
200.7A 200.000
200.7A 200.000
218.2 200.000
200.7A 201.000
200.7A 201.000
200.7A 201.000
Method Reported
Value
218.2 202.000
218.2 202.100
200.7A 204.000
218.2 205.000
218.2 205.000
218.2 205.000
218.2 205.500
218.2 206.000
218.1 206.000
other 206.000
218.2 207.000
Method Reported
Value
other 207.000
200.7A 209.000
218.1 212.000
218.2 213.000
200.7A 214.000
200.7A 218.000
218.1 220.000
218.2 227.500
200.7A 230.000
218.1 285.000
218.2 294.000
Water Study: 31
True Value: 81.6 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
218.2 68.000
218.1 73.000
218.2 73.200
200.7A 73.300
200.7A 74.000
200.7A 75.000
other 77.000
Method Reported
Value
other 77.000
other 77.100
200.7A 77.300
218.2 78.000
218.2 78.000
218.2 78.000
200.7A 78.600
Method Reported
Value
218.1 79.000
218.2 79.000
200.7A 79.800
218.2 79.800
218.1 80.000
other 80.000
218.2 80.900
Method Reported
Value
200.7A 80.900
218.2 81.000
200.7A 81.000
218.2 81.500
218.2 81.900
218.2 82.000
200.7A 82.800
Method Reported
Value
218.2 83.000
other 83.200
218.2 83.700
218.2 84.000
other 86.500
218.2 86.600
200.7A 86.800
Method Reported
Value
other 92.700
200. 7A 113.000
218.2 122.300




Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-51
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 32
True Value: 68.1ug/L
Method Reported
Value
200.7 59.400
218.2 59.800
200.7 60.000
218.2 61.000
218.2 61.500
218.2 61.500
218.1 61.600
218.2 61.600
218.2 62.800
218.2 63.600
218.1 64.000
200.7 64.000
Method Reported
Value
200.7 64.900
200.7 65.000
other 65.000
200.7 65.100
200.7 65.700
200.7 66.000
200.7 66.000
200.7 66.000
200.7 66.100
200.7 66.100
218.2 66.600
218.2 66.600
Method Reported
Value
218.2 66.800
200.7 67.000
218.2 67.300
218.2 67.300
218.2 67.600
200.7 67.600
200.7 67.900
200.7 68.000
200.7 68.000
218.2 68.100
200.7 68.360
218.2 68.500
Method Reported
Value
200.7 68.8000
200.7 68.800
218.2 68.900
218.2 68.900
218.2 69.000
200.7 69.000
218.2 69.000
200.7 69.000
218.2 69.200
200.7 69.200
200.7 69.300
218.1 69.500
Method Reported
Value
218.2 70.000
218.2 70.200
200.7 70.600
218.2 71.100
218.2 71.150
other 71.300
218.2 71.700
218.2 72.100
218.2 72.500
200.7 72.500
218.2 72.700
218.2 73.500
Method Reported
Value
218.2 74.000
200.7 76.900
218.2 77.900
218.2 78.200
200.7 80.900
218.2 86.500
218.2 99.780





Water Study: 33
True Value: 159 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
200.7 120.000
218.1 125.000
other 144.000
218.2 144.900
other 150.000
other 152.000
Method Reported
Value
200.7 154.000
200.7 154.000
200.7 156.000
200.7 156.000
200.7 156.000
200.7 157.000
Method Reported
Value
200.7 157.000
200.7 157.000
200.7 157.000
200.7 158.000
200.7 159.000
200.7 159.000
Method Reported
Value
200.7 159.000
other 160.000
200.7 160.000
218.2 160.000
218.2 160.000
218.2 163.000
Method Reported
Value
218.2 166.000
218.2 167.800
200.7 171.000
218.2 172.000
218.2 172.000
218.2 175.000
Method Reported
Value
200.7 176.000
218.2 176.600
218.2 177.000
218.2 181.000
218.2 187.500

Water Study: 34
True Value: 11.6 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
218.2 9.000
218.1 10.000
200.7 10.200
218.2 10.200
218.2 10.500
218.2 10.700
218.2 10.700
218.2 10.700
200.7 10.800
218.2 10.900
218.2 11.000
Method Reported
Value
200.7 11.000
200.7 11.000
other 11.200
200.7 11.200
200.7 11.300
200.7 11.300
218.2 11.300
218.2 11.400
218.2 11.500
218.2 11.500
218.2 11.500
Method Reported
Value
other 11.530
218.2 11.600
200.7 11.600
200.7 11.600
200.7 11.600
200.7 11.600
200.7 11.700
200.7 11.700
other 11.700
other 11.700
218.2 11.800
Method Reported
Value
218.2 11.800
200.7 11.900
200.7 11.900
200.7 11.900
218.2 12.000
200.7 12.000
218.2 12.000
218.2 12.000
218.2 12.100
218.2 12.200
218.2 12.200
Method Reported
Value
218.2 12.300
218.2 12.300
218.2 12.400
218.2 12.400
200.7 12.500
200.7 12.500
218.2 12.500
200.7 12.600
218.2 12.600
218.2 12.600
218.2 12.600
Method Reported
Value
200.7 12.600
218.2 12.700
200.7 12.700
other 12.700
218.2 13.000
200.7 13.000
218.2 13.000
200.7 13.400
218.2 13.800
200.7 21.100

Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-52
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 35
True Value: 119 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
218.1 99.000
other 106.000
200.7 108.000
other 108.800
218.2 112.000
218.2 112.000
200.7 113.000
218.2 113.000
Method Reported
Value
200.7 113.000
200.7 114.400
200.7 115.000
other 115.000
200.7 115.000
218.2 115.000
200.7 116.000
218.2 116.000
Method Reported
Value
200.7 117.000
other 117.000
200.7 117.000
218.2 117.400
200.7 118.000
200.7 118.000
218.2 118.000
other 118.000
Method Reported
Value
200.7 118.000
200.7 120.000
200.7 120.000
other 120.000
200.7 121.000
218.2 121.000
218.2 122.000
218.2 122.500
Method Reported
Value
218.2 124.000
218.2 125.000
200.7 125.000
200.7 126.000
other 128.000
200.7 129.000
200.7 130.000
218.2 130.700
Method Reported
Value
200.7 139.000
218.2 140.000
other 147.000





Water Study: 36
True Value: 37.8 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
other 32.100
200.9 32.400
200.7 34.400
200.9 34.600
200.8 34.900
200.7 35.000
200.7 35.000
200.7 35.200
200.8 35.600
3113B 35.800
3113B 35.900
Method Reported
Value
200.7 36.000
3113B 36.100
200.7 36.100
other 36.100
200.7 36.200
other 36.300
200.7 36.600
200.7 37.100
200.7 37.100
200.8 37.100
200.7 37.300
Method Reported
Value
200.8 37.300
200.7 37.400
3113B 37.500
200.7 37.500
200.9 37.500
200.7 37.500
200.7 37.700
other 37.700
200.8 37.800
3113B 38.000
other 38.000
Method Reported
Value
200.7 38.000
other 38.000
200.8 38.100
other 38.100
200.7 38.300
other 38.300
200.7 38.400
3113B 38.500
3113B 38.600
3113B 38.600
200.7 38.600
Method Reported
Value
201 38.700
200.9 38.800
200.7 38.800
200.7 39.100
200.8 39.100
200.7 39.300
200.9 39.700
3113B 40.000
200.8 40.000
200.9 40.000
3113B 40.300
Method Reported
Value
other 40.500
200.7 40.700
200.7 40.800
200.9 41.000
200.7 41.000
3113B 41.300
3113B 41.400
3113B 42.700
3113B 48.000
200.8 337.900

Water Study: 37
True Value: 72.9 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
200.9 59.300
other 60.000
200.7 64.200
200.7 64.900
200.7 66.600
200.7 67.000
other 67.900
200.7 68.400
200.9 68.500
Method Reported
Value
200.9 68.500
200.7 68.600
3113B 68.800
200.7 70.000
200.7 70.100
3113B 70.100
200.7 70.400
3113B 70.700
200.8 70.700
Method Reported
Value
200.9 70.890
200.8 71.000
200.9 71.200
200.7 71.300
200.7 71.500
200.7 71.600
200.7 71.800
200.9 72.000
200.9 72.000
Method Reported
Value
200.8 72.000
200.8 72.000
200.7 72.200
200.7 72.400
200.7 72.400
200.7 72.500
200.8 72.600
200.7 72.900
200.9 73.000
Method Reported
Value
200.7 73.000
200.9 73.000
200.8 73.100
200.9 73.300
200.7 73.700
200.7 73.800
200.7 73.900
3113B 75.000
200.8 75.100
Method Reported
Value
200.7 75.500
200.7 75.800
3113B 77.000
3113B 77.200
200.7 80.300
3113B 84.600



Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-53
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 38
True Value: 148 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
200.9 74.300
200.7 116.000
200.7 120.000
200.9 130.000
200.9 130.000
200.9 131.000
3113B 132.000
200.8 133.000
200.8 134.000
200.8 134.000
200.8 136.000
Method Reported
Value
200.7 136.000
200.8 136.000
200.7 137.000
200.9 137.000
200.9 137.000
200.9 137.000
200.8 137.000
200.7 137.000
200.7 137.000
200.9 137.000
200.7 138.000
Method Reported
Value
200.9 138.000
200.8 138.000
200.9 139.000
200.7 140.000
200.7 140.000
200.7 140.000
200.8 140.000
200.7 140.000
200.7 140.200
200.7 141.000
200.8 141.000
Method Reported
Value
200.8 141.000
other 141.000
200.9 141.000
200.7 141.100
200.7 142.000
200.7 142.000
200.9 142.000
200.8 143.000
200.7 143.200
200.7 144.000
200.7 144.000
Method Reported
Value
200.7 144.000
200.9 144.000
200.7 144.000
200.7 144.000
200.8 144.000
3113B 145.000
200.9 145.000
200.7 145.000
200.7 146.000
200.7 146.000
3113B 146.000
Method Reported
Value
200.7 147.000
200.7 148.000
3113B 149.000
other 149.000
3113B 150.000
200.7 151.000
200.9 151.000
3113B 153.000
3113B 158.000
200.7 160.000
200.9 165.000
Water Study: 39
True Value: 23.9 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
200.7 22.000
200.7 22.000
200.9 22.000
3113B 22.500
200.9 22.900
200.9 23.000
200.8 23.400
200.7 23.600
200.7 23.600
Method Reported
Value
200.7 23.600
200.8 23.600
200.7 23.700
200.7 23.800
200.7 23.800
200.8 23.800
3113B 23.900
200.7 24.000
200.7 24.000
Method Reported
Value
3113B 24.000
200.8 24.000
200.7 24.040
3113B 24.200
3113B 24.200
200.9 24.280
200.9 24.300
200.8 24.300
200.7 24.300
Method Reported
Value
200.7 24.400
200.7 24.600
200.7 24.700
200.7 24.700
200.7 24.800
200.8 24.800
200.9 24.900
200.7 25.000
200.7 25.000
Method Reported
Value
200.9 25.000
200.9 25.100
200.7 25.200
200.8 25.300
200.9 25.500
200.7 25.500
200.7 25.600
200.7 26.000
200.9 26.000
Method Reported
Value
200.7 26.900
200.9 27.500
other 28.100
200.9 29.000
200.8 29.600




Water Study: 40
True Value: 90.9 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
3113B 81.600
200.9 82.000
200.9 84.400
200.7 86.100
200.7 87.000
200.7 87.000
200.8 87.200
200.9 88.000
200.7 88.500
3113B 89.300
200.8 89.700
Method Reported
Value
200.7 90.000
200.8 90.000
3113B 90.500
200.7 90.700
200.8 90.700
200.8 90.900
200.8 91.000
200.7 91.400
200.7 91.400
200.7 91.500
3120B 91.600
Method Reported
Value
200.8 91.700
3113B 91.700
200.8 91.700
200.7 92.000
200.7 92.000
200.7 92.000
200.8 92.000
200.7 92.200
200.8 92.400
200.7 92.800
200.7 93.000
Method Reported
Value
200.8 93.000
200.9 93.100
200.8 93.570
200.7 94.000
200.7 94.000
3113B 94.000
200.7 94.400
200.7 94.600
200.8 94.600
200.8 94.700
200.7 94.900
Method Reported
Value
200.7 95.200
200.9 95.200
200.8 95.400
200.9 95.500
200.7 95.600
200.7 95.700
3113B 95.700
200.9 96.000
200.7 96.200
200.7 96.200
other 96.700
Method Reported
Value
200.9 96.800
200.8 97.000
200.7 98.000
200.7 98.400
200.8 98.500
200.9 99.500
200.7 101.000
200.7 104.000
200.9 109.000
other 121.000

Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-54
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 41
True Value: 55.5 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
200.9 47.800
200.8 49.400
200.7 50.900
other 51.000
200.8 51.100
200.8 51.300
200.7 51.700
200.7 51.900
Method Reported
Value
200.8 51.900
200.9 52.000
200.7 52.600
200.9 52.800
200.7 52.900
200.7 53.000
3113B 53.100
200.7 53.300
Method Reported
Value
200.7 53.300
200.7 53.500
200.9 54.000
200.7 54.000
200.8 54.300
200.7 54.400
200.7 54.500
200.8 54.600
Method Reported
Value
200.7 54.700
200.7 54.800
200.9 55.000
200.7 55.100
200.7 55.400
200.7 55.500
200.9 55.700
200.7 55.900
Method Reported
Value
200.9 55.900
200.8 56.000
200.8 56.400
200.8 56.500
200.7 57.000
200.9 57.000
200.8 57.100
200.9 57.300
Method Reported
Value
3113B 57.300
200.8 57.700
200.8 58.000
200.7 58.270
3113B 58.600
3113B 59.800
3113B 63.000

 l,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane(DBCP)

 Water Study: 26
 True Value: 1.13 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
504 0.661
504 0.808
other 0.830
other 0.860
504 0.874
504 0.904
Method Reported
Value
other 0.910
504 0.920
504 0.932
504 0.950
504 0.980
504 0.998
Method Reported
Value
other 1.000
504 1.000
504 1.003
504 1.017
504 1.030
504 1.046
Method Reported
Value
other 1.050
504 1.070
504 1.080
504 1.080
504 1.100
other 1.100
Method Reported
Value
504 1.120
504 1.120
other 1.140
504 1.140
504 1.150
504 1.160
Method Reported
Value
504 1.260
504 1.420
other 3.970
504 5.478
other 7.820

Water Study: 27
True Value: 0.653 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
other 0.473
504 0.479
other 0.537
Method Reported
Value
504 0.560
504 0.564
504 0.568
Method Reported
Value
504 0.580
504 0.584
504 0.600
Method Reported
Value
other 0.624
504 0.650
504 0.660
Method Reported
Value
other 0.674
504 0.677
504 0.702
Method Reported
Value
504 0.847
504 1.110
504 3.490
Water Study: 29
True Value: 1.91 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
504 0.952
504 1.400
504 1.407
504 1.480
Method Reported
Value
504 1.480
504 1.560
504 1.620
other 1.635
Method Reported
Value
504 1.640
504 1.640
504 1.660
504 1.670
Method Reported
Value
504 1.680
504 1.680
551 1.690
504 1.700
Method Reported
Value
other 1.710
504 1.740
504 1.750
other 1.760
Method Reported
Value
504 1.810
504 2.020
504 2.810

Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-55
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 30
True Value: 0.98 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
other 0.621
504 0.660
504 0.680
504 0.732
other 0.735
504 0.736
504 0.760
Method Reported
Value
504 0.780
504 0.786
504 0.790
504 0.800
504 0.807
504 0.810
other 0.819
Method Reported
Value
504 0.820
504 0.830
504 0.832
other 0.841
504 0.850
504 0.858
504 0.859
Method Reported
Value
504 0.864
504 0.870
504 0.870
504 0.875
504 0.897
504 0.908
504 0.920
Method Reported
Value
504 0.923
other 0.929
504 0.930
504 0.936
504 0.948
504 0.954
504 0.990
Method Reported
Value
504 1.050
other 1.420
504 2.200
504 4.880



Water Study: 31
True Value: 2.65 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
504 1.710
504 1.760
504 1.890
504 2.020
Method Reported
Value
504 2.110
other 2.110
other 2.130
504 2.160
Method Reported
Value
504 2.200
504 2.250
504 2.260
504 2.290
Method Reported
Value
504 2.300
504 2.320
504 2.361
504 2.370
Method Reported
Value
504 2.375
504 2.400
504 2.410
504 2.420
Method Reported
Value
504 2.429
504 2.970
504 12.000
504 17.200
Water Study: 32
True Value: 1.78 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
504 0.560
other 1.090
504 1.200
504 1.270
other 1.290
504 1.330
504 1.360
504 1.370
Method Reported
Value
504 1.380
504 1.400
504 1.400
504 1.412
504 1.421
other 1.450
504 1.470
504 1.470
Method Reported
Value
504 1.490
504 1.500
504 1.500
504 1.500
504 1.570
504 1.570
504 1.580
504 1.600
Method Reported
Value
504 1.600
504 1.630
504 1.630
504 1.640
504 1.650
504 1.660
504 1.670
504 1.680
Method Reported
Value
504 1.700
504 1.700
504 1.730
504 1.750
504 1.760
504 1.790
504 1.790
504 1.800
Method Reported
Value
504 1.920
504 1.940
504 1.970
504 2.460




Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-56
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 34
True Value: 0.363 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
504 0.067
504 0.078
504 0.130
504 0.239
504 0.251
504 0.269
504 0.276
504 0.280
Method Reported
Value
504 0.281
504 0.284
504 0.284
504 0.289
504 0.304
504 0.305
other 0.306
504 0.307
Method Reported
Value
other 0.312
504 0.313
504 0.317
504 0.318
504 0.320
504 0.323
504 0.325
504 0.327
Method Reported
Value
other 0.333
504 0.333
504 0.336
504 0.336
other 0.340
504 0.341
504 0.350
504 0.352
Method Reported
Value
504 0.354
504 0.360
504 0.373
504 0.377
504 0.385
504 0.388
504 0.390
504 0.390
Method Reported
Value
504 0.420
504 0.455
504 0.463
504 1.530
other 1.900



Water Study: 35
True Value: 0.589 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
504 0.350
504 0.394
504 0.408
other 0.438
other 0.443
504 0.446
Method Reported
Value
504 0.454
504 0.465
504 0.473
504 0.476
504 0.481
504 0.500
Method Reported
Value
504 0.500
504 0.504
504 0.508
504 0.510
504 0.519
other 0.524
Method Reported
Value
504 0.527
504 0.530
504 0.539
504 0.540
504 0.545
504 0.557
Method Reported
Value
504 0.567
other 0.592
504 0.663
other 2.907
504 7.000

Method Reported
Value






Water Study: 36
True Value: 0.196 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
other 0.127
504.1 0.135
504.1 0.145
504.1 0.156
other 0.157
504.1 0.158
504.1 0.170
504.1 0.172
504.1 0.175
Method Reported
Value
504.1 0.176
504.1 0.179
504.1 0.180
504.1 0.182
504.1 0.182
504.1 0.187
504.1 0.188
504.1 0.189
504.1 0.190
Method Reported
Value
504.1 0.190
551 0.192
504.1 0.192
504.1 0.192
504.1 0.192
other 0.193
504.1 0.193
504.1 0.195
504.1 0.196
Method Reported
Value
504.1 0.199
504.1 0.200
504.1 0.201
other 0.201
504.1 0.203
other 0.205
504.1 0.206
504.1 0.210
504.1 0.210
Method Reported
Value
504.1 0.210
504.1 0.212
504.1 0.214
504.1 0.217
other 0.220
504.1 0.224
504.1 0.227
504.1 0.235
other 0.242
Method Reported
Value
504.1 0.259
504.1 0.272
504.1 0.308
504.1 0.357
other 0.580




Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-57
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 37
True Value: 0.286 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
504.1 0.112
504.1 0.229
other 0.231
504.1 0.240
504.1 0.245
504.1 0.248
504.1 0.250
Method Reported
Value
504.1 0.256
504.1 0.259
504.1 0.260
504.1 0.263
504.1 0.265
other 0.268
504.1 0.270
Method Reported
Value
504.1 0.273
504.1 0.275
504.1 0.275
other 0.275
504.1 0.279
504.1 0.281
other 0.281
Method Reported
Value
504.1 0.283
504.1 0.284
504.1 0.286
504.1 0.289
504.1 0.295
504.1 0.295
504.1 0.299
Method Reported
Value
other 0.302
504.1 0.303
504.1 0.309
504.1 0.316
other 0.316
551 0.354
504.1 0.354
Method Reported
Value
504.1 0.364
504.1 0.365
504.1 0.377
504.1 0.410
504.1 0.468
504.1 0.843
504.1 1.410
Water Study: 38
True Value: 0.429 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
504.1 0.305
504.1 0.318
504.1 0.331
504.1 0.338
504.1 0.347
504.1 0.350
504.1 0.350
504.1 0.355
Method Reported
Value
504.1 0.367
504.1 0.370
504.1 0.376
504.1 0.400
504.1 0.400
504.1 0.401
other 0.403
504.1 0.404
Method Reported
Value
504.1 0.404
504.1 0.408
504.1 0.410
504.1 0.412
504.1 0.416
504.1 0.416
551 0.417
other 0.419
Method Reported
Value
504.1 0.420
504.1 0.426
504.1 0.437
504.1 0.437
504.1 0.438
504.1 0.439
other 0.445
504.1 0.449
Method Reported
Value
504.1 0.449
504.1 0.450
551 0.456
504.1 0.469
504.1 0.471
504.1 0.473
504.1 0.486
504.1 0.494
Method Reported
Value
504.1 0.502
other 0.512
504.1 0.513
504.1 0.522
504.1 0.542
504.1 0.555
504.1 0.562
504.1 3.960
Water Study: 39
True Value: 0.246 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
other 0.175
504.1 0.184
504.1 0.193
504.1 0.194
504.1 0.212
504.1 0.212
Method Reported
Value
504.1 0.214
504.1 0.224
504.1 0.226
504.1 0.226
504.1 0.227
504.1 0.234
Method Reported
Value
504.1 0.238
504.1 0.238
504.1 0.239
504.1 0.239
504.1 0.242
504.1 0.244
Method Reported
Value
504.1 0.250
504.1 0.254
504.1 0.255
other 0.255
504.1 0.255
504.1 0.255
Method Reported
Value
504.1 0.258
504.1 0.269
504.1 0.275
504.1 0.277
504.1 0.280
504.1 0.280
Method Reported
Value
504.1 0.284
504.1 0.285
other 0.308
504.1 0.348
504.1 2.150
551 2.280
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-58
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 40
True Value: 0.527 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
504.1 0.262
504.1 0.381
other 0.430
504.1 0.431
504.1 0.445
504.1 0.446
504.1 0.452
504.1 0.453
504.1 0.454
Method Reported
Value
504.1 0.457
504.1 0.457
504.1 0.472
504.1 0.474
504.1 0.474
504.1 0.475
504.1 0.483
504.1 0.486
other 0.487
Method Reported
Value
504.1 0.491
504.1 0.494
504.1 0.495
504.1 0.496
504.1 0.496
504.1 0.501
504.1 0.502
504.1 0.502
other 0.504
Method Reported
Value
504.1 0.508
other 0.511
504.1 0.516
504.1 0.518
504.1 0.519
504.1 0.521
504.1 0.524
504.1 0.529
504.1 0.530
Method Reported
Value
504.1 0.530
504.1 0.534
504.1 0.535
other 0.537
504.1 0.537
504.1 0.538
504.1 0.538
504.1 0.543
504.1 0.547
Method Reported
Value
504.1 0.545
other 0.581
504.1 0.643
504.1 0.645
504.1 0.650




Water Study: 41
True Value: 0.451 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
504.1 0.333
504.1 0.356
504.1 0.360
504.1 0.361
504.1 0.370
504.1 0.377
Method Reported
Value
504.1 0.380
504.1 0.392
504.1 0.394
504.1 0.399
504.1 0.399
504.1 0.399
Method Reported
Value
504.1 0.399
504.1 0.403
504.1 0.406
504.1 0.409
504.1 0.410
504.1 0.412
Method Reported
Value
504.1 0.413
504.1 0.425
504.1 0.432
other 0.432
504.1 0.434
504.1 0.446
Method Reported
Value
504.1 0.447
504.1 0.450
504.1 0.470
504.1 0.475
504.1 0.491
other 0.516
Method Reported
Value
504.1 0.520
504.1 0.526
504.1 0.532
504.1 0.532


 1,4-Dichlororbenzene
Water Study: 24
True Value: 2.50 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.1 1.100
502.1 1.200
524.1 1.670
502.2 1.710
502.2 1.730
524.2 1.870
524.1 1.900
502.2 1.900
502.2 1.940
502.1 1.960
Method Reported
Value
502.1 1.970
502.2 2.020
524.2 2.106
524.2 2.180
524.2 2.200
502.2 2.200
524.2 2.220
503.1 2.260
524.1 2.280
502.2 2.290
Method Reported
Value
503.1 2.300
502.2 2.300
524.2 2.300
524.2 2.300
524.1 2.320
502.2 2.330
502.2 2.360
502.2 2.370
524.2 2.390
other 2.400
Method Reported
Value
502.2 2.420
524.2 2.430
502.2 2.470
502.2 2.480
502.2 2.493
other 2.500
524.1 2.500
524.2 2.520
524.2 2.520
524.1 2.520
Method Reported
Value
524.2 2.520
524.2 2.530
502.2 2.580
524.2 2.580
524.2 2.590
502.2 2.600
524.2 2.700
502.2 2.730
524.2 2.759
502.2 2.770
Method Reported
Value
524.2 2.820
502.1 2.900
502.2 2.930
502.2 3.000
502.2 3.000
524.2 3.160
524.2 3.310



Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-59
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 25
True Value: 20.8 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 13.840
524.2 15.600
502.2 15.600
502.2 16.200
502.2 17.000
524.2 18.600
524.1 18.700
Method Reported
Value
524.2 18.720
502.2 19.000
502.1 19.300
524.2 19.59
524.1 19.600
502.2 19.900
524.1 20.000
Method Reported
Value
502.2 20.000
502.2 20.000
other 20.070
524.2 20.380
502.2 20.400
502.2 20.410
524.2 20.600
Method Reported
Value
524.2 20.900
524.2 20.900
524.2 21.300
524.1 21.400
502.2 21.400
524.2 21.800
524.2 21.800
Method Reported
Value
502.1 21.900
other 22.400
502.2 23.400
524.1 23.400
502.2 24.000
502.2 24.400
502.2 24.600
Method Reported
Value
other 26.800
524.2 28.000





Water Study: 26
True Value: 14.6 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 8.520
524.1 10.600
502.1 11.500
502.1 11.700
524.2 12.300
524.2 12.800
other 12.800
502.2 12.800
524.2 12.810
502.2 13.000
Method Reported
Value
502.2 13.100
502.2 13.100
502.2 13.400
502.2 13.400
503.1 13.500
524.2 13.800
524.2 13.900
524.2 14.000
524.2 14.000
524.1 14.100
Method Reported
Value
502.2 14.100
524.2 14.100
502.2 14.100
502.2 14.150
524.2 14.180
503.1 14.200
524.2 14.210
524.2 14.300
524.2 14.400
other 14.400
Method Reported
Value
502.2 14.500
524.2 14.600
502.2 14.800
502.2 14.800
502.2 14.800
524.2 14.800
524.2 14.900
502.2 15.100
502.2 15.100
524.2 15.100
Method Reported
Value
502.2 15.300
502.2 15.300
502.2 15.400
502.2 15.500
524.2 15.500
524.2 15.500
524.2 15.600
524.2 15.700
524.2 15.700
502.2 15.900
Method Reported
Value
524.2 16.000
503.1 16.100
502.2 16.190
524.2 16.200
524.2 16.500
524.1 16.900
502.1 16.900
524.1 17.500
502.2 17.500
524.1 22.100
Water Study: 27
True Value: 9.58 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
other 7.570
502.2 7.650
502.2 7.850
524.2 8.290
502.2 8.320
502.2 8.600
524.2 8.800
Method Reported
Value
524.2 8.810
502.2 8.840
524.2 8.930
other 9.000
other 9.060
502.2 9.090
502.2 9.210
Method Reported
Value
524.2 9.280
502.2 9.320
502.2 9.340
502.2 9.530
other 9.550
502.2 9.630
502.2 9.720
Method Reported
Value
524.2 9.750
524.2 9.780
524.2 9.800
524.1 9.820
502.2 9.900
524.2 9.950
524.2 10.100
Method Reported
Value
524.2 10.200
502.2 10.300
524.2 10.300
502.2 10.500
524.1 10.600
524.1 10.700
502.2 10.900
Method Reported
Value
502.2 11.000
524.2 12.030
524.2 12.820




Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-60
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 29
True Value: 6.60 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 4.420
524.2 4.660
524.2 5.000
502.2 5.150
502.2 5.170
502.2 5.680
Method Reported
Value
524.2 5.700
other 5.950
524.1 6.040
524.2 6.040
502.2 6.070
other 6.120
Method Reported
Value
502.2 6.177
other 6.240
524.2 6.420
502.2 6.498
524.2 6.620
502.2 6.620
Method Reported
Value
524.2 6.800
502.2 6.810
502.2 6.980
other 7.013
524.2 7.030
502.2 7.180
Method Reported
Value
502.2 7.360
502.2 7.480
524.2 7.600
524.2 7.700
502.2 7.730
524.2 7.800
Method Reported
Value
524.1 7.910
524.2 8.300
502.2 8.960
524.2 10.600


Water Study: 30
True Value: 16.1 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.1 10.800
524.2 11.400
524.2 11.500
524.2 12.200
502.2 12.500
502.2 12.700
524.2 13.740
524.2 13.900
502.2 14.000
502.2 14.100
Method Reported
Value
502.1 14.210
502.2 14.400
524.2 14.400
524.2 14.420
524.2 14.700
524.2 14.760
524.2 14.980
524.2 15.100
524.2 15.100
502.2 15.300
Method Reported
Value
502.2 15.300
524.1 15.500
524.2 15.500
524.2 15.500
524.2 15.500
524.2 15.700
524.2 15.700
502.2 15.800
502.2 15.800
other 15.980
Method Reported
Value
502.2 16.000
524.2 16.000
502.2 16.000
524.2 16.100
502.2 16.110
502.2 16.200
other 16.200
524.1 16.300
502.2 16.300
502.2 16.500
Method Reported
Value
502.2 16.510
502.2 16.600
524.1 16.700
502.2 16.700
524.2 16.800
524.2 16.800
503.1 16.820
524.2 16.900
502.2 16.900
502.2 17.000
Method Reported
Value
524.2 17.100
524.2 17.200
502.2 17.500
524.2 18.100
502.2 18.300
524.2 19.400
502.2 20.100
502.2 22.500


Water Study: 31
True Value: 9.40 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.1 6.610
503.1 7.630
502.2 7.840
502.2 7.850
502.2 7.880
502.2 7.900
Method Reported
Value
524.2 8.000
524.2 8.080
524.1 8.200
502.2 8.260
502.2 8.356
524.1 8.390
Method Reported
Value
524.2 8.680
502.1 8.890
502.2 8.990
524.2 8.990
502.2 9.090
502.2 9.180
Method Reported
Value
524.2 9.200
502.2 9.270
502.2 9.300
524.2 9.590
503.1 9.600
524.2 9.620
Method Reported
Value
524.2 9.770
524.2 9.830
502.2 9.940
502.1 9.940
502.2 10.000
524.2 10.000
Method Reported
Value
524.2 10.100
524.2 10.200
524.2 10.220
502.2 11.000
502.2 11.700
other 14.900
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-61
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 32
True Value: 13.6 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 7.150
502.1 10.600
502.2 10.800
502.2 11.100
502.2 11.700
524.2 11.800
524.2 11.800
524.2 12.000
524.1 12.000
502.2 12.100
502.2 12.200
Method Reported
Value
502.2 12.200
502.2 12.300
524.2 12.340
524.2 12.400
524.2 12.600
524.2 12.700
524.2 12.700
502.2 12.700
502.1 12.700
502.1 12.700
524.2 12.700
Method Reported
Value
524.2 12.760
524.2 12.800
502.2 12.800
503.1 12.900
524.2 12.900
524.2 12.900
524.2 13.000
502.2 13.100
502.2 13.200
524.2 13.270
524.2 13.360
Method Reported
Value
other 13.4000
524.2 13.400
524.2 13.500
other 13.500
502.2 13.500
502.2 13.600
502.2 13.600
502.2 13.600
524.2 13.630
524.2 13.700
502.2 13.700
Method Reported
Value
502.2 13.800
524.2 13.800
524.2 13.900
502.2 14.000
524.2 14.000
524.2 14.140
524.2 14.400
524.2 14.400
502.2 14.500
524.2 14.900
524.2 15.000
Method Reported
Value
502.2 15.200
502.2 15.400
502.2 15.500
524.2 15.800
524.2 15.900
502.2 19.200





Water Study: 33
True Value: 15.1 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 8.980
other 10.730
524.2 11.500
502.2 11.800
502.2 12.190
524.1 12.500
Method Reported
Value
524.2 12.810
502.2 13.000
524.2 13.300
502.2 13.400
524.2 13.600
502.2 13.600
Method Reported
Value
524.2 13.800
502.2 14.000
524.2 14.200
524.2 14.400
502.2 14.420
502.2 14.500
Method Reported
Value
524.2 14.800
502.2 14.900
524.2 14.990
502.2 15.000
502.2 15.000
502.2 15.200
Method Reported
Value
524.2 15.200
502.2 15.500
502.1 16.000
502.2 16.100
502.1 16.200
502.2 16.800
Method Reported
Value
524.2 17.000
524.2 17.400
524.2 19.000



Water Study: 34
True Value: 5.78 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
other 3.750
524.2 3.760
524.2 4.300
524.2 4.530
502.2 4.580
502.2 4.710
502.2 4.780
502.2 4.800
502.2 4.800
524.2 4.860
Method Reported
Value
502.2 4.888
502.2 4.970
524.2 5.040
524.2 5.060
502.2 5.060
524.2 5.080
502.2 5.080
502.2 5.130
502.2 5.150
502.2 5.250
Method Reported
Value
502.2 5.250
524.2 5.260
524.2 5.260
502.2 5.290
524.2 5.300
524.2 5.330
524.2 5.400
502.2 5.430
524.2 5.440
524.2 5.460
Method Reported
Value
502.2 5.490
502.2 5.490
524.2 5.510
502.2 5.530
524.2 5.580
524.2 5.600
524.2 5.620
524.2 5.700
524.2 5.700
502.2 5.800
Method Reported
Value
502.2 5.800
502.2 5.820
502.2 5.840
524.2 5.860
524.2 5.900
502.2 5.920
524.2 5.940
524.2 5.990
524.2 6.000
502.2 6.030
Method Reported
Value
524.2 6.110
524.2 6.130
524.2 6.130
502.2 6.160
502.2 6.160
524.2 6.530
other 6.800
524.2 7.060
524.2 7.790

Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-62
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 35
True Value: 16.7 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 13.300
502.2 13.800
502.2 13.800
502.2 13.930
502.2 14.560
other 14.620
Method Reported
Value
524.2 14.700
502.2 15.000
524.2 15.000
524.2 15.400
502.2 15.600
524.2 15.600
Method Reported
Value
524.2 15.600
524.2 15.800
524.2 16.000
502.2 16.000
502.2 16.000
502.2 16.100
Method Reported
Value
524.2 16.100
524.2 16.200
502.2 16.370
502.2 16.400
524.2 16.400
524.2 16.600
Method Reported
Value
524.2 16.700
524.2 16.700
524.2 16.800
502.2 16.900
502.2 17.700
524.2 17.700
Method Reported
Value
524.2 18.200
524.2 18.290
502.2 22.300



Water Study: 36
True Value: 11.9 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 8.390
524.2 9.220
502.2 10.000
524.2 10.010
524.2 10.100
502.2 10.100
524.2 10.200
524.2 10.300
524.2 10.300
502.2 10.300
Method Reported
Value
524.2 10.500
502.2 10.600
502.2 10.610
524.2 10.800
524.2 10.900
502.2 10.900
524.2 10.950
502.2 11.000
524.2 11.000
524.2 11.000
Method Reported
Value
524.2 11.000
524.2 11.000
524.2 11.090
524.2 11.100
524.2 11.100
502.2 11.200
502.2 11.300
524.2 11.300
524.2 11.400
524.2 11.400
Method Reported
Value
524.2 11.500
502.2 11.500
524.2 11.600
502.2 11.600
502.2 11.700
524.2 11.700
524.2 11.700
524.2 11.740
524.2 11.800
502.2 11.900
Method Reported
Value
502 11.900
524.2 12.000
502.2 12.000
524.2 12.090
502.2 12.100
524.2 12.110
502.2 12.200
524.2 12.300
524.2 12.300
502.2 12.300
Method Reported
Value
other 12.400
other 12.500
524.2 12.500
502.2 12.600
524.2 12.800
502.2 13.000
502.2 13.100
other 13.200
524.2 14.000
524.2 15.800
Water Study: 37
True Value: 7.31 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 4.730
502.2 4.870
524.2 5.280
502.2 5.370
524.2 5.480
524.2 5.560
524.2 5.670
524.2 5.800
Method Reported
Value
524.2 6.010
502.2 6.100
502.2 6.240
524.2 6.340
502.2 6.360
502.2 6.390
524.2 6.390
502.2 6.460
Method Reported
Value
524.2 6.500
524.2 6.500
502.2 6.520
502.2 6.570
524.2 6.630
524.2 6.690
524.2 6.920
524.2 7.000
Method Reported
Value
524.2 7.000
502.2 7.060
502.2 7.060
502.2 7.180
524.2 7.230
524.2 7.260
524.2 7.350
502.2 7.450
Method Reported
Value
502.2 7.570
524.2 7.830
502.2 7.840
502.2 7.890
502.2 7.920
524.2 8.000
524.2 8.110
other 8.150
Method Reported
Value
524.2 8.180
524.2 8.280
524.2 8.470
other 9.500
524.2 9.580
524.2 11.500
524.2 14.200

Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-63
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 38
True Value: 14.2 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 8.890
524.2 9.370
524.2 9.560
524.2 9.630
524.2 9.860
524.2 9.980
502.2 10.000
502.2 10.000
502.2 10.300
Method Reported
Value
502.2 10.300
524.2 10.400
524.2 10.500
502.2 10.500
524.2 10.500
other 10.600
502.2 10.750
502.2 10.800
524.2 11.000
Method Reported
Value
502.2 11.000
524.2 11.100
524.2 11.100
502.2 11.100
524.2 11.100
524.2 11.200
524.2 11.400
524.2 11.500
other 11.500
Method Reported
Value
524.2 11.600
524.2 11.600
524.2 11.600
502.2 11.600
502.2 11.600
524.2 11.640
502.2 11.700
524.2 11.900
524.2 12.000
Method Reported
Value
524.2 12.000
502.2 12.000
502.2 12.100
502.2 12.100
524.2 12.100
524.2 12.300
524.2 12.300
502.2 12.400
524.2 12.500
Method Reported
Value
502.2 12.600
524.2 12.700
502.2 12.800
524.2 13.000
524.2 13.000
524.2 13.000
524.2 13.100
524.2 13.500
524.2 13.630
Water Study: 39
True Value: 17.8 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 11.200
524.2 12.200
502.2 14.200
524.2 15.300
502.2 15.300
524.2 15.600
524.2 15.700
Method Reported
Value
524.2 15.800
502.2 15.900
524.2 15.900
524.2 16.200
524.2 16.200
524.2 16.400
524.2 16.400
Method Reported
Value
502.2 16.500
502.2 16.500
524.2 16.600
524.2 16.800
524.2 16.800
502.2 16.900
524.2 17.000
Method Reported
Value
524.2 17.000
524.2 17.100
524.2 17.100
502.2 17.200
502.2 17.300
524.2 17.600
502.2 17.600
Method Reported
Value
524.2 17.700
524.2 17.770
502.2 18.000
524.2 18.000
502.2 18.000
524.2 18.300
502.2 18.300
Method Reported
Value
524.2 18.600
502.2 18.700
524.2 19.200
524.2 19.300
524.2 20.100
524.2 22.800
524.2 40.170
Water Study: 40
True Value: 11.6 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
other 7.930
502.2 8.100
524.2 8.240
502.2 9.210
524.2 9.320
502.2 9.500
524.2 9.880
524.2 9.910
524.2 9.940
524.2 10.000
Method Reported
Value
524.2 10.000
524.2 10.100
502.2 10.400
524.2 10.500
502.2 10.500
524.2 10.500
524.2 10.600
524.2 10.600
524.2 10.600
524.2 10.700
Method Reported
Value
502.2 10.700
524.2 10.700
524.2 10.700
524.2 10.800
524.2 10.800
other 10.800
502.2 10.800
524.2 10.800
524.2 11.000
524.2 11.100
Method Reported
Value
524.2 11.100
524.2 11.200
524.2 11.200
502.2 11.200
524.2 11.200
524.2 11.300
502.2 11.300
524.2 11.400
524.2 11.400
524.2 11.500
Method Reported
Value
524.2 11.500
524.2 11.600
502.2 11.600
524.2 11.800
524.2 11.800
502.2 11.900
524.2 12.100
502.2 12.100
502.2 12.200
524.2 12.200
Method Reported
Value
502.2 12.300
524.2 13.400
524.2 13.600
524.2 13.800
524.2 14.200
502.2 14.500
524.2 15.000



Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-64
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 41
True Value: 15.8 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 9.800
524.2 11.900
524.2 12.000
524.2 12.800
524.2 13.000
502.2 13.700
524.2 13.800
Method Reported
Value
524.2 13.800
524.2 13.800
524.2 13.900
524.2 14.000
524.2 14.100
502.2 14.100
524.2 14.100
Method Reported
Value
502.2 14.300
524.2 14.400
524.2 14.500
502.2 14.700
502.2 14.800
502.2 14.800
524.2 15.000
Method Reported
Value
524.2 15.090
524.2 15.100
524.2 15.100
502.2 15.200
524.2 15.300
524.2 15.300
502.2 15.400
Method Reported
Value
502.2 15.400
524.2 15.400
other 15.400
524.2 15.500
524.2 15.700
524.2 15.800
524.2 15.900
Method Reported
Value
524.2 16.000
502.2 16.100
502.2 16.200
524.2 16.800
524.2 17.000
524.2 17.300
502.2 18.100
 1,2-Dichloroethane
Water Study: 24
True Value: 13.2 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.1 7.750
502.1 9.100
502.2 9.220
524.1 9.820
502.1 10.000
other 10.600
524.1 10.660
524.2 10.700
502.2 11.000
502.2 11.100
Method Reported
Value
502.2 11.400
502.2 11.600
502.2 11.700
502.2 11.800
502.2 11.900
524.2 11.900
524.2 12.000
524.2 12.030
524.2 12.100
502.2 12.100
Method Reported
Value
524.2 12.140
502.1 12.200
524.1 12.200
524.2 12.200
502.2 12.300
524.2 12.500
524.1 12.600
502.2 12.600
524.2 12.600
502.1 12.900
Method Reported
Value
502.2 12.900
524.2 12.900
502.2 13.000
524.2 13.000
502.2 13.200
502.2 13.200
524.2 13.500
502.2 13.500
502.2 13.500
502.2 13.510
Method Reported
Value
502.2 13.600
524.2 13.680
524.2 13.700
524.2 13.700
524.1 13.700
524.2 13.700
502.1 13.900
524.2 14.000
524.2 14.000
524.2 14.000
Method Reported
Value
524.2 14.200
502.1 14.300
502.2 14.700
502.2 14.700
other 15.500
502.2 17.000




Water Study: 25
True Value: 15.5 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.1 11.000
502.2 11.200
524.2 12.610
502.2 13.350
502.2 13.500
other 13.910
524.2 14.200
Method Reported
Value
524.2 14.260
502.1 14.500
524.1 14.500
524.1 14.500
524.2 14.530
524.1 14.600
502.2 14.900
Method Reported
Value
502.2 15.000
502.2 15.130
524.2 15.380
502.2 15.400
524.2 15.600
502.2 15.600
524.2 15.600
Method Reported
Value
502.1 15.800
other 15.900
502.2 16.300
502.1 16.400
502.2 16.400
502.2 16.400
524.2 16.600
Method Reported
Value
524.1 16.600
524.2 16.800
524.2 16.900
502.2 17.000
524.2 17.000
502.2 17.700
502.2 18.100
Method Reported
Value
502.2 18.500
other 19.700
524.2 21.000




Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-65
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 26
True Value: 10.8 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 7.140
524.2 9.730
524.1 9.800
524.2 9.800
502.2 9.810
524.2 9.960
524.2 10.100
502.2 10.200
502.2 10.200
524.2 10.400
Method Reported
Value
502.1 10.400
502.2 10.400
502.2 10.500
502.2 10.500
other 10.500
524.1 10.500
502.2 10.700
524.2 10.780
524.2 10.800
524.2 11.000
Method Reported
Value
524.2 11.000
524.2 11.000
502.2 11.000
524.2 11.100
524.2 11.100
502.2 11.100
502.2 11.200
502.2 11.200
502.2 11.300
502.1 11.300
Method Reported
Value
524.2 11.350
524.2 11.400
524.2 11.400
524.2 11.500
other 11.600
502.2 11.600
502.2 11.700
502.1 11.700
524.1 11.900
524.2 11.900
Method Reported
Value
502.2 12.000
524.2 12.000
502.2 12.000
524.2 12.000
502.1 12.100
502.2 12.100
524.2 12.200
524.1 12.200
502.2 12.200
502.2 12.300
Method Reported
Value
524.2 12.300
524.1 12.400
524.2 12.400
502.1 12.500
502.1 12.500
502.2 12.600
502.2 12.750
524.2 13.800
502.2 17.300

Water Study: 27
True Value: 4.88 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 4.080
502.2 4.360
524.2 4.490
502.2 4.500
502.2 4.500
524.2 4.510
502.2 4.530
Method Reported
Value
524.2 4.600
502.2 4.630
524.2 4.740
502.2 4.790
502.2 4.800
502.2 4.800
524.2 4.800
Method Reported
Value
524.2 5.000
524.2 5.090
502.2 5.100
524.1 5.150
502.2 5.160
524.2 5.260
524.2 5.270
Method Reported
Value
524.2 5.300
524.2 5.310
524.2 5.360
other 5.390
502.1 5.400
502.2 5.460
524.2 5.560
Method Reported
Value
502.2 5.650
502.2 5.730
502.2 5.780
other 5.800
524.2 5.920
502.2 6.230
502.2 6.350
Method Reported
Value
524.1 6.610
other 6.610





Water Study: 29
True Value: 12.9 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 10.360
502.2 10.650
524.2 11.100
524.2 12.000
524.2 12.290
524.2 12.300
Method Reported
Value
524.2 12.400
502.2 12.500
502.2 12.700
502.2 12.700
502.2 12.700
502.2 12.700
Method Reported
Value
502.2 12.800
524.2 13.000
502.2 13.100
502.2 13.170
524.2 13.200
524.2 13.200
Method Reported
Value
524.1 13.300
524.2 13.760
502.2 13.800
524.2 13.800
other 13.800
502.2 13.880
Method Reported
Value
524.1 14.200
other 14.670
502.2 14.800
524.2 15.800
502.2 16.000
524.2 16.100
Method Reported
Value
524.2 16.400
524.2 16.500
502.2 17.700
other 17.800


Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-66
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 30
True Value: 7.69 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.1 6.210
502.2 6.400
524.2 6.580
502.2 6.600
524.2 6.700
502.2 6.880
524.2 6.930
524.2 6.980
502.2 7.020
502.2 7.220
Method Reported
Value
502.2 7.300
524.2 7.340
502.2 7.370
524.2 7.400
524.2 7.460
524.2 7.500
524.2 7.500
524.2 7.530
524.2 7.540
502.2 7.600
Method Reported
Value
524.2 7.600
524.2 7.610
502.2 7.700
524.2 7.700
502.1 7.710
other 7.725
502.2 7.740
502.2 7.753
524.2 7.770
524.2 7.790
Method Reported
Value
524.2 7.800
502.2 7.800
524.2 7.800
524.2 7.800
524.2 7.800
524.1 7.830
524.1 7.850
524.2 7.850
524.2 7.860
502.2 7.870
Method Reported
Value
502.2 7.900
502.2 7.900
502.2 8.010
524.2 8.030
other 8.130
524.2 8.140
502.2 8.160
502.2 8.160
other 8.390
502.2 8.510
Method Reported
Value
502.2 8.610
524.1 8.650
502.1 8.740
502.2 8.770
524.2 8.800
502.2 8.870
502.2 9.330
524.2 10.030
502.2 19.820

Water Study: 31
True Value: 9.25 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 6.240
502.1 7.470
524.2 8.200
502.2 8.350
524.2 8.380
524.2 8.510
Method Reported
Value
524.2 8.610
502.2 8.620
502.1 8.850
502.2 8.876
502.2 8.930
502.2 8.970
Method Reported
Value
524.1 9.060
502.2 9.060
524.2 9.130
524.2 9.200
524.2 9.200
524.2 9.270
Method Reported
Value
502.2 9.320
524.2 9.460
524.2 9.480
502.2 9.500
502.2 9.590
502.2 9.660
Method Reported
Value
502.2 9.720
524.2 9.730
502.1 9.890
524.2 9.890
524.2 9.900
502.2 9.980
Method Reported
Value
502.2 10.100
502.1 10.300
524.2 10.300
other 10.300
524.2 10.310
502.2 11.300
Water Study: 32
True Value: 13.3 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 9.450
502.1 9.960
502.2 11.200
502.2 11.400
502.2 11.400
524.2 11.400
524.2 11.500
502.2 11.700
524.2 12.100
502.2 12.200
524.2 12.240
Method Reported
Value
524.2 12.300
502.2 12.400
502.2 12.500
502.1 12.600
502.1 12.700
524.2 12.700
524.2 12.700
502.2 12.700
524.2 12.800
502.2 12.800
524.2 12.900
Method Reported
Value
502.2 12.900
524.2 12.900
524.2 13.000
502.2 13.000
524.2 13.000
502.1 13.000
502.2 13.200
524.2 13.250
502.2 13.300
524.2 13.300
524.1 13.300
Method Reported
Value
524.2 13.300
502.2 13.300
other 13.500
524.2 13.500
502.2 13.600
524.2 13.600
502.2 13.700
524.2 13.720
524.2 13.800
524.2 13.900
524.2 14.000
Method Reported
Value
524.2 14.100
502.2 14.100
524.2 14.200
502.2 14.300
524.2 14.300
524.2 14.320
502.2 14.400
other 14.400
502.2 14.400
502.2 14.500
502.2 14.600
Method Reported
Value
524.2 14.660
524.2 15.100
524.2 15.300
502.2 15.400
524.2 15.600
524.2 15.600
other 16.200
524.2 16.500



Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-67
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 33
True Value: 16.9 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 11.800
other 14.270
502.1 14.600
524.2 14.700
502.2 15.200
524.2 15.300
Method Reported
Value
524.2 15.300
524.2 15.340
502.2 15.500
502.2 15.570
502.2 16.200
502.2 16.300
Method Reported
Value
524.2 16.400
524.2 16.500
524.2 16.520
524.1 16.600
502.2 16.700
502.2 17.100
Method Reported
Value
502.2 17.100
502.2 17.100
502.2 17.200
524.2 17.230
502.2 17.700
524.2 17.800
Method Reported
Value
524.2 17.900
524.2 18.100
524.2 18.100
502.2 18.200
524.2 18.300
524.2 18.700
Method Reported
Value
502.2 18.900
502.1 19.500
502.2 19.570
524.2 19.800
524.2 20.000

Water Study: 34
True Value: 12.1 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 9.480
other 9.700
502.2 10.000
524.2 10.200
524.2 10.300
502.1 10.300
502.2 10.400
502.2 10.600
524.2 10.990
502.2 11.000
Method Reported
Value
502.2 11.000
524.2 11.200
502.2 11.200
524.2 11.300
502.2 11.400
524.2 11.400
524.2 11.570
502.2 11.600
502.2 11.600
524.2 11.700
Method Reported
Value
502.2 11.700
524.2 11.700
524.2 11.800
502.2 11.900
524.2 11.900
502.2 11.900
502.2 12.000
502.2 12.000
524.2 12.000
524.2 12.100
Method Reported
Value
524.2 12.100
502.2 12.100
502.2 12.150
524.2 12.200
524.2 12.300
502.2 12.300
524.2 12.400
524.2 12.400
524.2 12.400
502.2 12.400
Method Reported
Value
502.2 12.430
524.2 12.500
502.2 12.500
524.2 12.600
502.2 12.600
524.2 12.600
524.2 12.790
524.2 12.800
524.2 12.870
502.2 12.900
Method Reported
Value
524.2 12.900
502.2 12.900
524.2 13.000
other 13.100
524.2 13.200
502.2 13.200
524.2 13.400
502.2 13.500
524.2 13.500
502.2 14.400
Water Study: 35
True Value: 14.1 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 9.520
502.2 11.900
524.2 13.000
524.2 13.000
502.2 13.200
502.2 13.380
Method Reported
Value
502.2 13.400
524.2 13.500
524.2 13.650
524.2 13.700
524.2 13.700
524.2 13.700
Method Reported
Value
502.2 13.800
other 13.860
524.2 14.100
502.2 14.100
524.2 14.200
524.2 14.700
Method Reported
Value
524.2 14.700
524.2 14.800
502.2 15.010
502.2 15.020
524.2 15.200
502.2 15.300
Method Reported
Value
502.2 15.300
524.2 15.300
502.2 15.400
502.2 15.500
524.2 15.500
other 15.600
Method Reported
Value
502.2 15.700
502.2 16.400
524.2 16.400
524.2 17.700


Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-68
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 36
True Value: 9.00 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 7.240
524.2 7.490
524.2 7.820
502.2 7.840
502.2 7.840
524.2 7.890
524.2 7.930
524.2 7.950
524.2 8.130
502.2 8.240
Method Reported
Value
502.2 8.270
524.2 8.300
502.2 8.300
524.2 8.340
524.2 8.350
524.2 8.350
524.2 8.450
502.2 8.460
524.2 8.490
524.2 8.570
Method Reported
Value
524.2 8.600
524.2 8.640
524.2 8.680
524.2 8.690
524.2 8.700
524.2 8.740
502.2 8.790
524.2 8.840
502.2 8.900
other 8.930
Method Reported
Value
524.2 8.950
524.2 9.000
524.2 9.030
502.2 9.040
502.2 9.080
502.2 9.090
524.2 9.100
524.2 9.120
502.2 9.120
524.2 9.200
Method Reported
Value
524.2 9.220
524.2 9.220
502.2 9.300
524.2 9.480
524.2 9.670
502.2 9.700
502.2 9.710
502.2 9.710
502.2 9.740
502.2 9.770
Method Reported
Value
502.2 9.870
502.2 9.880
524.2 9.900
other 10.100
502.2 10.400
524.2 10.480
502.2 11.300
other 11.500
524.2 11.820

Water Study: 37
True Value: 13.2 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 11.800
524.2 11.900
524.2 11.920
502.2 12.000
502.2 12.100
524.2 12.400
524.2 12.500
502.2 12.800
Method Reported
Value
524.2 13.100
524.2 13.100
524.2 13.100
524.2 13.100
524.2 13.100
524.2 13.260
524.2 13.300
502.2 13.400
Method Reported
Value
524.2 13.400
502.2 13.400
502.2 13.500
524.2 13.600
524.2 13.700
524.2 13.700
502.2 14.000
502.2 14.200
Method Reported
Value
502.2 14.200
524.2 14.200
524.2 14.230
524.2 14.300
524.2 14.400
524.2 14.400
502.2 14.400
502.2 14.700
Method Reported
Value
524.2 14.700
502.2 15.000
502.2 15.100
502.2 15.100
524.2 15.200
502 15.800
other 15.900
other 16.600
Method Reported
Value
524.2 16.900
524.2 17.000
524.2 17.150
524.2 17.600
502.2 18.800
524.2 20.600
524.2 27.500

Water Study: 38
True Value: 15.6 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 8.210
524.2 12.100
502.2 13.380
524.2 14.400
502.2 14.400
524.2 14.500
524.2 14.700
524.2 14.800
524.2 14.900
Method Reported
Value
524.2 14.900
524.2 15.000
524.2 15.000
524.2 15.000
502.2 15.100
524.2 15.100
524.2 15.200
524.2 15.200
524.2 15.300
Method Reported
Value
502.2 15.300
524.2 15.400
524.2 15.600
502.2 15.600
524.2 15.700
other 15.800
502.2 15.800
524.2 15.800
502.2 15.800
Method Reported
Value
524.2 15.900
524.2 15.900
502.2 15.900
502.2 16.000
502.2 16.000
502.2 16.000
524.2 16.080
524.2 16.100
524.2 16.100
Method Reported
Value
502.2 16.100
502.2 16.100
524.2 16.200
other 16.300
524.2 16.300
524.2 16.500
524.2 16.500
502.2 16.700
524.2 16.700
Method Reported
Value
524.2 16.750
524.2 16.800
502.2 17.300
502.2 17.400
524.2 17.400
502.2 17.500
524.2 17.800
524.2 18.900
524.2 21.200
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-69
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 39
True Value: 17.6 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 12.200
524.2 13.500
502.2 15.500
502.2 15.700
502.2 15.900
524.2 15.900
524.2 16.400
Method Reported
Value
524.2 16.700
524.2 16.700
502.2 16.800
524.2 16.800
524.2 16.900
502.2 17.000
524.2 17.100
Method Reported
Value
524.2 17.100
524.2 17.100
524.2 17.300
524.2 17.400
502.2 17.500
524.2 17.500
502.2 17.800
Method Reported
Value
524.2 17.900
502.2 18.000
524.2 18.070
502.2 18.100
524.2 18.100
524.2 18.200
502.2 18.400
Method Reported
Value
524.2 18.600
502.2 18.800
524.2 18.800
524.2 18.800
524.2 18.900
502.2 19.400
502.2 19.500
Method Reported
Value
524.2 19.700
524.2 20.100
524.2 20.700
524.2 21.200
524.2 21.400
524.2 21.600
524.2 28.500
Water Study: 40
True Value: 15.6 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 14.000
524.2 14.700
524.2 14.700
524.2 15.200
524.2 15.400
524.2 16.200
502.2 16.200
524.2 16.300
524.2 16.300
other 16.500
Method Reported
Value
524.2 16.700
502.2 16.800
524.2 16.800
524.2 16.800
524.2 16.900
502.2 16.900
502.2 16.900
524.2 16.900
502.2 17.000
502.2 17.100
Method Reported
Value
524.2 17.100
524.2 17.200
524.2 17.260
524.2 17.300
524.2 17.300
524.2 17.400
502.2 17.400
502.2 17.500
502.2 17.500
524.2 17.500
Method Reported
Value
524.2 17.600
502.2 17.700
524.2 17.800
502.2 17.900
524.2 17.900
524.2 18.000
524.2 18.000
524.2 18.200
524.2 18.300
524.2 18.300
Method Reported
Value
524.2 18.300
other 18.300
524.2 18.400
502.2 18.500
524.2 18.600
524.2 18.700
524.2 18.800
502.2 18.900
502.2 19.300
524.2 19.600
Method Reported
Value
502.2 20.100
524.2 20.300
524.2 20.500
524.2 20.600
524.2 20.600
524.2 21.200
524.2 23.300



Water Study: 41
True Value: 13.7 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 12.000
524.2 12.200
524.2 12.300
502.2 12.600
524.2 12.600
502.2 12.800
524.2 12.800
Method Reported
Value
524.2 13.100
524.2 13.300
524.2 13.300
502.2 13.400
524.2 13.500
524.2 13.500
524.2 13.500
Method Reported
Value
524.2 13.500
524.2 13.600
524.2 13.600
524.2 13.700
524.2 13.700
524.2 13.700
524.2 13.800
Method Reported
Value
524.2 13.920
524.2 14.000
524.2 14.000
502.2 14.100
502.2 14.200
524.2 14.200
other 14.200
Method Reported
Value
524.2 14.230
524.2 14.300
502.2 14.500
502.2 14.600
524.2 14.700
502.2 15.100
524.2 15.100
Method Reported
Value
524.2 15.300
502.2 15.800
524.2 16.300
502.2 16.700
524.2 17.000
502.2 18.000

Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-70
Final - March 2003

-------
 1,1 -Dichlo roethy lene
Water Study: 24
True Value: 5.36ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 4.000
524.1 4.060
524.2 4.250
502.1 4.290
502.2 4.420
502.2 4.480
524.1 4.520
502.2 4.880
524.2 4.890
502.2 4.900
Method Reported
Value
524.2 4.900
524.2 4.900
502.2 4.950
502.2 4.993
524.2 5.000
524.2 5.030
502.1 5.100
502.2 5.180
502.1 5.200
other 5.200
Method Reported
Value
524.2 5.220
502.1 5.250
502.2 5.290
524.2 5.300
502.2 5.350
524.2 5.380
524.1 5.380
502.2 5.380
524.2 5.400
524.2 5.430
Method Reported
Value
502.2 5.430
502.2 5.500
502.2 5.550
524.2 5.600
other 5.600
524.2 5.680
502.2 5.710
502.2 5.720
524.2 5.742
524.2 5.820
Method Reported
Value
502.1 5.990
524.2 6.100
524.1 6.200
524.1 6.420
502.2 6.500
502.2 6.750
502.2 6.800
524.1 6.810
524.2 7.210
524.2 7.333
Method Reported
Value
502.2 8.290
502.2 8.400
502.2 8.660
502.1 8.880
524.2 9.510
other 10.600
524.2 10.800



Water Study: 25
True Value: 14.9 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.1 10.500
524.2 12.100
502.2 12.600
502.2 12.700
502.1 13.400
502.2 13.400
502.2 13.610
Method Reported
Value
524.2 13.610
502.2 13.700
502.2 14.500
524.2 14.600
502.2 14.810
502.1 15.000
524.2 15.100
Method Reported
Value
524.1 15.100
524.2 15.200
502.2 15.700
502.2 15.800
other 15.970
524.1 16.300
524.2 16.300
Method Reported
Value
other 16.500
524.2 16.800
524.2 17.010
502.1 17.100
524.2 17.130
524.1 17.300
502.2 17.400
Method Reported
Value
524.2 17.900
502.2 18.300
502.2 18.600
502.2 18.800
524.2 18.800
502.2 19.000
502.2 19.500
Method Reported
Value
524.1 20.100
other 29.700
524.2 38.200




Water Study: 26
True Value: 6.64 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 4.583
524.2 5.600
524.2 5.640
502.2 5.700
502.2 5.730
502.1 6.030
524.1 6.050
524.2 6.100
502.2 6.200
502.2 6.400
Method Reported
Value
502.2 6.450
524.2 6.500
502.2 6.560
502.2 6.580
502.2 6.590
502.2 6.600
other 6.700
524.2 6.710
502.2 6.730
502.2 6.730
Method Reported
Value
524.2 6.740
502.2 6.790
502.2 6.850
524.1 6.980
524.2 6.980
524.2 6.980
502.2 7.060
524.1 7.130
524.2 7.170
524.2 7.180
Method Reported
Value
502.1 7.380
524.2 7.390
502.1 7.390
other 7.390
524.2 7.400
502.2 7.550
524.2 7.580
502.2 7.600
524.2 7.630
524.2 7.690
Method Reported
Value
524.1 7.790
502.2 7.820
502.1 7.820
502.1 7.870
524.2 7.894
524.2 7.920
502.2 7.960
524.2 8.000
524.2 8.300
502.2 8.300
Method Reported
Value
524.2 8.420
524.2 8.590
524.2 8.600
524.2 8.900
524.1 8.930
524.2 9.000
502.1 9.200
502.2 9.380
502.2 9.490
502.2 15.900
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-71
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 27
True Value: 9.45 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
other 4.180
524.2 6.580
502.2 7.380
524.2 8.040
524.2 8.260
524.2 8.300
524.2 8.950
Method Reported
Value
524.2 9.050
524.2 9.160
502.2 9.300
502.2 9.400
524.2 9.430
502.2 9.470
502.2 9.500
Method Reported
Value
502.2 9.500
524.2 9.500
524.2 9.560
other 9.580
502.1 9.780
502.2 9.980
502.2 10.000
Method Reported
Value
other 10.100
524.2 10.200
524.2 10.200
502.2 10.300
502.2 10.400
502.2 10.400
524.2 10.610
Method Reported
Value
502.2 11.100
524.1 11.200
502.2 11.400
502.2 11.400
502.2 12.000
524.2 12.110
502.2 13.300
Method Reported
Value
524.1 15.700
502.2 16.400





Water Study: 29
True Value: 11.7 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 10.200
502.2 10.500
524.2 10.600
502.2 10.800
524.2 11.300
524.2 11.300
Method Reported
Value
502.2 11.600
524.1 11.700
other 11.700
502.2 11.800
524.2 12.000
524.2 12.000
Method Reported
Value
502.2 12.100
502.2 12.100
524.2 12.200
524.2 12.200
524.2 12.400
524.2 12.400
Method Reported
Value
502.2 12.500
other 12.500
524.2 12.700
524.2 12.740
524.2 12.750
502.2 13.700
Method Reported
Value
524.2 13.900
other 13.960
502.2 14.600
524.1 14.600
502.2 15.500
502.2 15.650
Method Reported
Value
502.2 15.800
502.2 16.000
524.2 16.500
502.2 16.900
502.2 17.390

Water Study: 30
True Value: 14.2 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 9.950
502.2 11.400
524.2 11.940
524.2 12.300
524.2 12.910
502.2 13.000
524.2 13.000
502.2 13.100
502.2 13.300
502.2 13.400
Method Reported
Value
502.2 13.400
524.2 13.600
524.2 13.600
524.2 13.700
524.2 13.800
502.2 13.810
other 13.900
502.2 13.900
other 13.900
524.2 14.000
Method Reported
Value
524.2 14.000
502.2 14.100
524.2 14.100
524.2 14.200
524.1 14.400
502.2 14.500
524.2 14.520
524.2 14.600
524.2 14.720
524.2 14.800
Method Reported
Value
502.2 14.800
524.2 15.000
524.2 15.000
502.2 15.300
502.2 15.300
524.1 15.400
502.1 15.420
502.2 15.500
524.2 15.500
502.2 15.600
Method Reported
Value
502.2 15.700
502.2 15.780
524.2 15.800
524.2 15.900
502.2 15.900
524.2 16.000
524.2 16.300
502.2 16.600
524.1 16.800
524.2 16.800
Method Reported
Value
502.1 17.100
502.2 17.200
502.2 17.300
other 17.440
524.2 17.800
502.2 17.900
502.1 19.330
524.2 20.300
502.1 20.600

Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-72
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 31
True Value: 7.02 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 3.400
524.2 5.803
524.2 6.130
502.2 6.410
502.2 6.450
other 6.460
524.2 6.790
Method Reported
Value
502.2 6.812
524.2 6.820
524.2 6.830
524.2 6.880
502.1 7.010
524.2 7.200
524.2 7.420
Method Reported
Value
502.1 7.480
502.2 7.500
502.2 7.560
502.2 7.600
524.2 7.600
524.2 7.650
524.1 7.670
Method Reported
Value
502.2 7.670
524.2 7.800
502.2 7.980
502.2 7.990
502.1 8.000
524.2 8.120
502.2 8.330
Method Reported
Value
502.2 8.470
502.2 8.480
524.2 8.500
524.2 8.500
502.2 8.620
502.2 8.710
524.2 8.860
Method Reported
Value
502.2 9.420
502.1 9.800





Water Study: 32
True Value: 9. 13 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 7.740
524.2 7.800
524.2 8.090
502.2 8.450
502.2 8.490
502.2 8.510
502.2 8.550
502.2 8.620
524.2 8.730
502.1 8.750
502.2 8.810
Method Reported
Value
other 8.900
524.2 8.960
524.2 9.000
524.2 9.100
502.2 9.130
524.2 9.160
502.2 9.230
524.2 9.240
524.2 9.240
524.2 9.260
524.2 9.260
Method Reported
Value
502.2 9.280
502.2 9.290
502.2 9.350
524.2 9.380
524.2 9.380
502.1 9.390
524.2 9.460
524.2 9.470
502.1 9.470
524.2 9.480
502.2 9.530
Method Reported
Value
524.2 9.540
524.2 9.650
502.2 9.700
524.2 9.700
other 9.700
524.2 9.800
524.2 9.920
524.2 9.930
524.2 9.940
502.2 9.940
502.2 9.960
Method Reported
Value
524.2 9.980
524.2 10.100
502.2 10.200
502.2 10.300
502.2 10.400
502.2 10.400
502.2 10.400
524.2 10.500
524.2 10.500
524.2 10.600
other 10.600
Method Reported
Value
502.1 10.800
502.2 10.800
524.2 11.000
524.2 11.500
524.2 11.700
524.2 12.000
502.2 12.100
524.1 12.100



Water Study: 33
True Value: 12.9 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 9.670
502.2 9.950
502.1 10.500
502.2 10.800
other 11.850
524.2 11.900
Method Reported
Value
524.2 12.000
502.2 12.000
502.2 12.500
524.2 12.760
524.2 13.100
502.2 13.150
Method Reported
Value
502.2 13.300
502.2 13.400
524.2 13.600
524.2 13.600
524.2 13.790
502.2 13.800
Method Reported
Value
502.2 14.100
502.2 14.400
524.2 14.500
524.1 14.800
524.2 14.900
524.2 15.000
Method Reported
Value
524.2 15.000
502.2 15.100
502.2 15.400
502.1 15.900
502.2 15.900
524.2 16.800
Method Reported
Value
524.2 17.500
502.2 17.800
524.2 19.400



Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-73
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 34
True Value: 7.64 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 5.860
502.2 6.260
524.2 6.400
524.2 6.580
502.2 6.720
524.2 6.720
502.2 6.840
524.2 7.100
524.2 7.160
502.2 7.180
Method Reported
Value
other 7.200
524.2 7.200
502.2 7.270
other 7.300
524.2 7.300
502.2 7.303
502.2 7.340
524.2 7.380
502.2 7.390
524.2 7.440
Method Reported
Value
502.2 7.450
524.2 7.450
502.1 7.520
502.2 7.610
524.2 7.670
524.2 7.680
524.2 7.740
502.2 7.900
524.2 7.920
502.2 7.940
Method Reported
Value
524.2 7.950
524.2 7.950
502.2 7.960
524.2 8.000
502.2 8.010
502.2 8.050
502.2 8.060
502.2 8.240
524.2 8.340
502.2 8.360
Method Reported
Value
524.2 8.380
524.2 8.400
524.2 8.400
502.2 8.420
524.2 8.450
502.2 8.450
524.2 8.500
524.2 8.610
524.2 8.620
524.2 8.670
Method Reported
Value
502.2 8.880
502.2 9.000
502.2 9.090
524.2 9.200
524.2 9.320
502.2 9.400
502.2 9.420
524.2 9.900
524.2 10.500
524.2 12.100
Water Study: 35
True Value: 13.9 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 6.320
502.2 10.000
502.2 11.600
other 12.720
524.2 13.000
502.2 13.300
Method Reported
Value
502.2 13.400
524.2 13.400
502.2 13.700
524.2 14.000
524.2 14.100
524.2 14.200
Method Reported
Value
524.2 14.200
502.2 14.500
502.2 14.590
502.2 14.630
524.2 14.800
524.2 15.100
Method Reported
Value
502.2 15.100
502.2 15.200
502.2 15.200
524.2 15.500
524.2 15.500
other 15.600
Method Reported
Value
524.2 15.600
524.2 15.600
524.2 15.600
524.2 15.650
502.2 15.700
524.2 15.900
Method Reported
Value
524.2 16.500
524.2 16.500
502.2 16.500
524.2 16.830
502.2 16.960

Water Study: 36
True Value: 8.49 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 5.990
524.2 7.510
524.2 7.670
524.2 7.720
502.2 7.730
524.2 7.730
502.2 7.940
524.2 7.950
502.2 8.120
524.2 8.150
Method Reported
Value
524.2 8.230
502.2 8.260
524.2 8.280
502.2 8.310
502.2 8.340
524.2 8.420
502.2 8.450
502.2 8.470
524.2 8.480
524.2 8.540
Method Reported
Value
524.2 8.580
524.2 8.600
524.2 8.780
502.2 8.820
524.2 8.860
524.2 8.900
524.2 8.910
502.2 8.970
524.2 8.980
524.2 8.980
Method Reported
Value
other 9.100
502.2 9.100
502.2 9.120
524.2 9.200
502.2 9.220
524.2 9.290
502.2 9.340
524.2 9.340
524.2 9.340
502.2 9.410
Method Reported
Value
524.2 9.470
524.2 9.500
524.2 9.750
502.2 9.750
other 9.760
524.2 9.760
524.2 9.860
524.2 9.910
524.2 9.990
502.2 10.000
Method Reported
Value
524.2 10.100
other 10.200
502.2 10.200
524.2 10.300
524.2 10.300
502.2 10.400
524.2 10.470
502.2 11.100
502.2 11.100
other 12.100
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-74
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 37
True Value: 16.5 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 13.200
524.2 14.500
502.2 14.600
502.2 14.700
524.2 15.100
524.2 15.300
502.2 15.400
502.2 15.400
Method Reported
Value
502.2 15.500
524.2 15.500
502.2 16.100
524.2 16.200
502.2 16.200
524.2 16.270
524.2 16.400
502.2 16.400
Method Reported
Value
524.2 16.400
524.2 16.460
other 16.600
524.2 16.700
524.2 16.800
524.2 16.800
502.2 17.000
524.2 17.170
Method Reported
Value
524.2 17.400
502.2 17.600
524.2 17.700
524.2 17.800
524.2 17.900
524.2 18.000
524.2 18.000
524.2 18.300
Method Reported
Value
502.2 18.300
502.2 18.500
524.2 18.500
524.2 18.700
502.2 18.700
524.2 18.800
502.2 19.300
other 19.400
Method Reported
Value
524.2 20.500
502.2 20.600
other 20.700
502.2 20.800
502.2 20.800
524.2 21.700
524.2 22.000
524.2 48.200
Water Study: 38
True Value: 11.7 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 8.000
524.2 8.640
502.2 12.100
524.2 13.000
502.2 13.000
502.2 13.100
502.2 13.100
524.2 13.400
524.2 13.700
other 13.800
Method Reported
Value
524.2 13.800
524.2 13.800
524.2 13.900
524.2 14.100
524.2 14.180
524.2 14.400
502.2 14.400
524.2 14.500
502.2 14.800
524.2 14.900
Method Reported
Value
524.2 14.900
524.2 15.000
524.2 15.100
502.2 15.100
524.2 15.200
502.2 15.300
502.2 15.400
502.2 15.400
502.2 15.410
524.2 15.500
Method Reported
Value
502.2 15.700
other 15.800
524.2 15.800
other 15.900
524.2 16.000
524.2 16.100
524.2 16.200
524.2 16.300
502.2 16.400
524.2 16.400
Method Reported
Value
524.2 16.400
524.2 16.600
524.2 16.700
502.2 16.800
524.2 17.000
524.2 17.200
502.2 17.200
502.2 17.300
524.2 17.300
524.2 17.490
Method Reported
Value
524.2 17.600
502.2 17.800
502.2 17.900
524.2 18.000
524.2 18.700
502.2 22.800




Water Study: 39
True Value: 12.4 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 8.070
524.2 9.980
524.2 10.400
524.2 10.900
524.2 11.200
524.2 11.200
524.2 11.200
502.2 11.300
Method Reported
Value
524.2 11.400
502.2 11.900
524.2 11.900
524.2 12.000
502.2 12.300
502.2 12.400
524.2 12.400
524.2 12.500
Method Reported
Value
502.2 12.500
524.2 12.500
other 12.600
502.2 12.800
502.2 13.000
524.2 13.200
502.2 13.300
502.2 13.300
Method Reported
Value
524.2 13.400
524.2 13.500
524.2 13.600
524.2 13.600
524.2 13.800
524.2 13.900
502.2 14.000
524.2 14.000
Method Reported
Value
502.2 14.400
524.2 14.400
524.2 14.400
524.2 15.800
524.2 16.100
524.2 16.800
502.2 17.400
524.2 18.750
Method Reported
Value
524.2 22.500
524.2 23.000
524.2 35.240





Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-75
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 40
True Value: 18.3 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 12.500
524.2 13.800
524.2 14.700
502.2 15.000
524.2 15.200
524.2 15.500
524.2 15.700
524.2 16.000
524.2 16.400
other 16.900
Method Reported
Value
524.2 17.100
524.2 17.600
524.2 17.700
524.2 17.700
524.2 17.700
524.2 17.800
524.2 18.000
524.2 18.000
524.2 18.000
524.2 18.000
Method Reported
Value
502.2 18.100
524.2 18.100
502.2 18.200
502.2 18.400
524.2 18.600
524.2 18.800
524.2 18.800
other 18.800
502.2 18.800
524.2 18.900
Method Reported
Value
502.2 19.000
502.2 19.000
502.2 19.100
524.2 19.200
524.2 19.200
524.2 19.310
502.2 19.400
524.2 19.400
524.2 19.500
524.2 19.500
Method Reported
Value
524.2 19.500
524.2 19.600
524.2 19.600
502.2 19.700
502.2 20.200
524.2 20.200
524.2 20.500
502.2 20.700
524.2 20.900
502.2 21.800
Method Reported
Value
524.2 21.900
524.2 21.900
524.2 22.600
other 22.800
524.2 22.900
524.2 23.000
502.2 23.000
502.2 25.000


Water Study: 41
True Value: 5.25 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 4.670
502.2 4.720
502.2 4.760
502.2 5.010
524.2 5.020
524.2 5.100
524.2 5.350
Method Reported
Value
524.2 5.400
524.2 5.440
524.2 5.480
524.2 5.530
524.2 5.560
502.2 5.570
524.2 5.600
Method Reported
Value
524.2 5.610
524.2 5.680
524.2 5.690
524.2 5.720
other 5.750
502.2 5.780
524.2 5.790
Method Reported
Value
524.2 5.800
524.2 5.810
524.2 5.830
524.2 5.860
524.2 5.900
502.2 5.900
502.2 5.900
Method Reported
Value
524.2 5.900
502.2 6.050
524.2 6.070
524.2 6.110
502.2 6.210
524.2 6.260
524.2 6.390
Method Reported
Value
502.2 6.480
524.2 6.480
524.2 6.540
524.2 6.600
502.2 7.170
524.2 9.280

Dichloromethane
Water Study: 26
True Value: 15.2 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 9.000
524.1 9.400
other 9.900
524.2 11.100
524.2 11.100
524.2 11.700
502.2 11.700
524.2 11.700
502.2 12.000
Method Reported
Value
502.2 12.900
502.2 13.000
502.2 13.400
502.2 13.900
524.2 13.930
524.1 14.200
502.2 14.200
other 14.300
502.2 14.400
Method Reported
Value
524.2 14.500
524.2 14.600
524.2 14.700
502.2 14.700
other 14.800
502.2 14.800
524.2 14.800
502.1 14.900
502.2 14.900
Method Reported
Value
524.2 15.140
502.2 15.200
524.1 15.200
502.2 15.200
502.2 15.800
524.2 15.800
524.2 15.800
524.2 15.800
502.2 16.000
Method Reported
Value
524.2 16.200
502.1 16.280
524.1 16.400
524.2 16.500
502.2 17.070
502.2 17.200
502.1 17.600
524.1 17.700
502.2 18.100
Method Reported
Value
524.2 18.300
502.2 18.400
502.2 18.700
502.1 18.800
502.2 19.000
502.2 22.500



Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-76
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 29
True Value: 14.7 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
other 11.800
502.2 13.230
524.2 13.280
524.2 13.500
524.1 14.000
524.2 14.300
Method Reported
Value
502.2 14.400
502.2 14.500
other 14.540
524.2 14.600
502.2 14.600
502.2 14.700
Method Reported
Value
502.2 14.720
524.2 14.740
502.2 14.800
502.2 14.900
524.2 15.200
502.2 15.300
Method Reported
Value
524.2 15.360
524.2 15.400
502.2 15.600
502.2 15.670
502.2 15.800
502.2 15.820
Method Reported
Value
524.1 15.900
524.2 16.000
502.2 16.100
524.2 16.700
502.2 16.800
other 17.000
Method Reported
Value
524.2 17.100
524.2 17.500
502.2 21.100



Water Study: 32
True Value: 7.77 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 3.260
524.2 4.430
502.2 5.090
524.2 6.250
other 6.340
502.2 6.370
524.2 6.450
502.2 6.630
502.2 6.910
Method Reported
Value
502.2 6.920
502.2 7.000
502.1 7.050
other 7.100
524.2 7.200
524.2 7.300
502.2 7.320
502.2 7.340
524.2 7.340
Method Reported
Value
502.2 7.350
524.2 7.400
502.2 7.430
524.2 7.480
524.2 7.520
524.2 7.580
502.2 7.620
502.2 7.630
524.2 7.840
Method Reported
Value
502.2 7.840
other 7.850
524.2 7.970
524.2 8.020
524.2 8.070
524.2 8.200
502.2 8.220
524.2 8.300
524.2 8.480
Method Reported
Value
524.2 8.500
502.1 8.600
502.2 8.660
524.1 8.660
502.2 8.740
524.2 8.820
524.2 8.950
502.1 9.100
524.2 9.100
Method Reported
Value
502.2 9.190
502.2 9.420
524.2 9.720
524.2 10.400
502.2 10.600
524.2 12.100



Water Study: 33
True Value: 12.8 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
other 9.192
502.2 9.920
524.2 10.700
502.2 11.100
502.2 11.100
502.2 11.400
Method Reported
Value
502.2 11.500
other 11.800
502.2 11.800
502.2 11.990
524.2 12.000
502.2 12.000
Method Reported
Value
524.2 12.000
524.2 12.300
524.2 12.500
524.1 12.500
524.2 12.700
524.2 12.700
Method Reported
Value
502.2 12.800
502.2 12.900
502.1 13.200
524.2 13.290
524.2 13.460
524.2 13.500
Method Reported
Value
502.2 13.700
524.2 13.740
502.2 14.200
524.2 14.200
502.2 14.200
524.2 14.700
Method Reported
Value
502.2 15.000
502.2 15.280
502.2 15.500
524.2 16.400


Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-77
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 34
True Value: 18.4 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 14.100
524.2 14.100
524.2 14.200
524.2 14.500
524.2 15.100
524.2 15.700
524.2 15.790
502.2 16.100
502.2 16.720
502.2 16.800
Method Reported
Value
524.2 17.000
502.2 17.300
502.2 17.300
524.2 17.300
524.2 17.400
502.2 17.500
524.2 17.600
502.2 17.600
502.2 17.700
524.2 17.900
Method Reported
Value
502.2 17.900
524.2 17.900
502.2 17.900
502.2 18.000
524.2 18.100
524.2 18.100
524.2 18.300
524.2 18.500
524.2 18.600
502.2 18.900
Method Reported
Value
502.2 19.000
502.2 19.000
524.2 19.050
502.2 19.100
502.2 19.100
524.2 19.200
502.2 19.200
502.2 19.250
502.2 19.300
502.2 19.400
Method Reported
Value
502.2 19.400
502.2 19.500
524.2 19.800
524.2 19.900
524.2 20.000
524.2 20.000
502.2 20.000
524.2 20.000
524.2 20.270
524.2 20.500
Method Reported
Value
524.2 20.600
524.2 20.700
524.2 21.200
502.1 21.600
524.2 21.710
other 22.200
502.2 22.200
502.2 25.200
502.2 33.100

Water Study: 35
True Value: 5.83 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 4.510
524.2 4.570
502.2 4.690
524.2 4.960
other 5.030
524.2 5.400
Method Reported
Value
502.2 5.490
524.2 5.500
524.2 5.530
502.2 5.530
524.2 5.550
502.2 5.580
Method Reported
Value
502.2 5.600
524.2 5.620
502.2 5.640
502.2 5.770
524.2 5.800
524.2 5.970
Method Reported
Value
524.2 5.990
524.2 6.100
502.2 6.157
502.2 6.180
524.2 6.220
502.2 6.280
Method Reported
Value
524.2 6.300
524.2 6.300
502.2 6.370
502.2 6.380
502.2 6.380
524.2 6.470
Method Reported
Value
524.2 6.560
502.2 6.600
502.2 7.070
524.2 7.200
502.2 13.200

Water Study: 36
True Value: 12.3 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 7.700
524.2 7.930
524.2 8.340
524.2 9.400
524.2 9.960
524.2 9.980
524.2 10.000
524.2 10.300
other 10.900
524.2 11.000
Method Reported
Value
524.2 11.000
524.2 11.050
524.2 11.100
524.2 11.100
502.2 11.200
502.2 11.200
524.2 11.200
524.2 11.300
502.2 11.300
524.2 11.400
Method Reported
Value
524.2 11.400
524.2 11.500
524.2 11.580
502.2 11.600
502.2 11.700
524.2 11.700
502.2 11.900
502.2 12.000
502.2 12.000
524.2 12.100
Method Reported
Value
524.2 12.100
524.2 12.100
524.2 12.150
524.2 12.160
other 12.200
502.2 12.200
502.2 12.200
502.2 12.210
524.2 12.300
502.2 12.400
Method Reported
Value
524.2 12.400
524.2 12.500
502.2 12.500
other 12.600
502.2 12.600
524.2 12.600
524.2 12.700
502.2 12.700
524.2 12.700
502.2 13.000
Method Reported
Value
524.2 13.200
502.2 13.200
502.2 13.400
524.2 13.670
502.2 14.300
502.2 14.400
502.2 14.500
524.2 15.100
502.2 15.800

Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-78
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 37
True Value: 8.41 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 6.900
502.2 7.210
524.2 7.280
524.2 7.350
524.2 7.540
524.2 7.790
524.2 7.900
502.2 8.020
Method Reported
Value
502.2 8.040
524.2 8.070
502.2 8.110
502.2 8.250
524.2 8.270
502.2 8.280
524.2 8.310
524.2 8.330
Method Reported
Value
502.2 8.420
524.2 8.420
524.2 8.420
524.2 8.450
524.2 8.500
524.2 8.520
524.2 8.590
502.2 8.600
Method Reported
Value
other 8.610
524.2 8.660
524.2 8.740
524.2 8.750
502.2 9.100
524.2 9.150
524.2 9.150
524.2 9.170
Method Reported
Value
502.2 9.260
502.2 9.360
502.2 9.370
502.2 9.640
524.2 9.710
502.2 9.760
524.2 10.400
502.2 10.500
Method Reported
Value
524.2 10.740
other 10.800
524.2 10.800
502.2 11.900
524.2 12.300
524.2 12.700
502.2 14.200

Water Study: 38
True Value: 14.7 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 7.970
other 12.500
502.2 12.500
524.2 12.500
524.2 12.800
524.2 13.100
524.2 13.100
524.2 13.100
502.2 13.200
Method Reported
Value
524.2 13.200
524.2 13.300
524.2 13.400
502.2 13.400
502.2 13.500
502.2 13.600
524.2 13.600
524.2 13.600
524.2 13.760
Method Reported
Value
other 13.800
502.2 13.800
524.2 13.800
524.2 13.800
524.2 14.000
524.2 14.000
524.2 14.000
502.2 14.100
524.2 14.200
Method Reported
Value
524.2 14.200
524.2 14.200
524.2 14.400
502.2 14.600
524.2 14.700
502.2 14.700
524.2 14.700
502.2 14.700
502.2 14.800
Method Reported
Value
524.2 14.900
524.2 14.900
524.2 15.000
502.2 15.000
524.2 15.100
524.2 15.200
524.2 15.200
524.2 15.200
524.2 15.370
Method Reported
Value
502.2 15.400
502.2 15.500
502.2 15.600
524.2 16.000
502.2 16.120
524.2 16.200
502.2 16.400
502.2 16.600
524.2 17.400
Water Study: 39
True Value: 7.31 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 4.750
502.2 5.500
524.2 5.970
524.2 6.030
502.2 6.300
524.2 6.420
524.2 6.950
Method Reported
Value
524.2 7.000
524.2 7.020
502.2 7.080
524.2 7.100
502.2 7.120
502.2 7.160
502.2 7.170
Method Reported
Value
524.2 7.200
524.2 7.300
524.2 7.370
524.2 7.430
524.2 7.440
502.2 7.540
524.2 7.540
Method Reported
Value
524.2 7.550
524.2 7.620
524.2 7.700
502.2 7.750
502.2 7.940
524.2 8.040
524.2 8.060
Method Reported
Value
524.2 8.070
524.2 8.080
524.2 8.140
524.2 8.150
502.2 8.350
524.2 8.500
502.2 8.550
Method Reported
Value
524.2 8.600
524.2 8.600
524.2 9.260
524.2 9.522
524.2 9.640
502.2 9.890
524.2 9.920
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-79
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 40
True Value: 6.20 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 4.540
524.2 4.910
524.2 5.350
524.2 5.440
524.2 5.580
524.2 5.600
524.2 5.740
524.2 5.740
524.2 5.780
524.2 5.860
Method Reported
Value
524.2 5.900
524.2 5.910
other 5.940
524.2 6.000
524.2 6.010
502.2 6.070
524.2 6.080
502.2 6.100
502.2 6.120
524.2 6.230
Method Reported
Value
502.2 6.240
524.2 6.250
524.2 6.310
524.2 6.320
524.2 6.330
502.2 6.390
524.2 6.420
524.2 6.440
502.2 6.460
524.2 6.480
Method Reported
Value
502.2 6.500
524.2 6.530
524.2 6.550
524.2 6.550
524.2 6.690
502.2 6.710
524.2 6.780
524.2 6.800
524.2 6.890
502.2 6.920
Method Reported
Value
other 6.990
502.2 7.000
524.2 7.010
524.2 7.060
502.2 7.100
524.2 7.120
524.2 7.170
502.2 7.480
524.2 7.570
524.2 7.600
Method Reported
Value
524.2 7.860
524.2 8.000
502.2 8.010
524.2 8.490
502.2 8.630
524.2 9.400
502.2 10.300



Water Study: 41
True Value: 15.9 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 6.380
524.2 10.000
524.2 11.500
524.2 12.500
524.2 13.400
524.2 13.800
524.2 13.900
Method Reported
Value
524.2 14.000
502.2 14.000
524.2 14.600
502.2 14.700
524.2 14.800
502.2 14.900
524.2 14.900
Method Reported
Value
524.2 15.100
524.2 15.100
524.2 15.200
524.2 15.300
other 15.300
524.2 15.300
524.2 15.400
Method Reported
Value
524.2 15.400
524.2 15.500
502.2 15.600
524.2 15.760
524.2 15.850
524.2 15.900
524.2 16.200
Method Reported
Value
502.2 16.200
502.2 16.600
502.2 16.600
524.2 16.600
524.2 16.800
524.2 17.300
502.2 17.400
Method Reported
Value
502.2 17.500
524.2 18.200
502.2 18.900
502.2 19.800
524.2 19.800


 1,2-Dichloropropane

 Water Study: 29
 True Value: 15.8 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 10.800
502.2 11.050
524.2 12.900
524.1 13.700
502.2 13.700
502.2 14.400
Method Reported
Value
524.2 14.500
524.1 14.700
524.2 14.750
524.2 14.820
502.2 14.970
502.2 15.000
Method Reported
Value
524.2 15.100
502.2 15.100
502.2 15.300
other 15.600
502.2 15.600
524.2 15.600
Method Reported
Value
524.2 15.700
other 15.700
502.2 15.800
524.2 16.000
524.2 16.100
502.2 16.300
Method Reported
Value
524.2 16.500
502.2 17.000
502.2 17.000
other 17.080
502.2 17.600
502.2 18.070
Method Reported
Value
502.2 18.800
524.2 19.600
502.2 21.080



Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-80
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 30
True Value: 10.9 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 8.690
524.2 8.780
524.2 8.940
502.1 9.290
502.2 9.490
502.1 9.590
524.2 9.600
502.2 9.700
524.2 9.710
502.2 9.740
Method Reported
Value
502.2 9.773
502.2 9.800
524.2 9.900
524.2 9.960
524.2 10.000
524.2 10.000
other 10.000
524.2 10.100
502.2 10.100
524.1 10.200
Method Reported
Value
502.2 10.200
524.2 10.200
524.2 10.290
524.2 10.300
524.2 10.300
502.2 10.300
524.2 10.400
524.2 10.480
502.2 10.500
524.1 10.600
Method Reported
Value
502.2 10.600
502.2 10.700
524.2 10.700
other 10.710
502.2 10.800
502.2 10.800
502.2 10.800
502.2 10.800
524.2 10.900
502.2 10.900
Method Reported
Value
524.2 10.900
524.1 10.900
502.2 10.900
524.2 10.900
524.2 11.000
502.2 11.020
524.2 11.100
502.2 11.100
524.2 11.200
524.2 11.200
Method Reported
Value
524.2 11.400
other 11.400
524.2 11.400
524.2 11.400
502.2 11.500
524.2 11.600
502.2 11.600
502.2 11.700


Water Study: 32
True Value: 6.46 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 4.540
502.2 4.970
502.2 4.970
524.2 5.000
524.2 5.090
502.2 5.260
524.2 5.300
502.2 5.410
502.1 5.500
502.2 5.600
502.2 5.640
Method Reported
Value
502.2 5.690
524.2 5.700
502.1 5.700
502.2 5.760
502.2 5.760
502.2 5.880
502.2 5.900
524.2 5.900
524.2 5.900
524.2 5.920
524.2 5.960
Method Reported
Value
524.2 5.970
502.2 5.980
524.2 6.000
502.2 6.000
524.2 6.110
524.2 6.120
502.1 6.130
502.2 6.130
502.1 6.160
502.2 6.160
502.2 6.190
Method Reported
Value
other 6.250
524.2 6.280
524.2 6.280
502.2 6.280
524.2 6.310
524.2 6.350
502.2 6.370
502.2 6.370
524.2 6.380
524.2 6.430
524.2 6.434
Method Reported
Value
524.2 6.440
524.2 6.460
524.2 6.460
524.2 6.480
524.2 6.600
524.2 6.630
524.1 6.680
502.2 6.720
524.2 6.750
502.2 6.780
524.2 6.900
Method Reported
Value
524.2 6.910
524.2 7.070
other 7.210
524.2 7.520
502.2 7.700
524.2 8.710





Water Study: 33
True Value: 14.3 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 10.700
502.2 11.180
524.1 12.100
502.2 12.400
other 12.890
524.2 12.900
Method Reported
Value
524.2 12.900
524.2 13.200
524.2 13.300
502.2 13.300
502.2 13.500
524.2 13.700
Method Reported
Value
502.2 13.900
502.2 13.900
502.1 14.000
502.2 14.000
502.2 14.000
502.2 14.030
Method Reported
Value
524.2 14.200
524.2 14.500
502.2 14.600
502.2 14.700
524.2 14.700
502.2 14.800
Method Reported
Value
502.2 14.800
524.2 14.900
524.2 15.100
502.2 15.200
524.2 15.500
524.2 15.700
Method Reported
Value
502.1 15.700
524.2 16.500




Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-81
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 34
True Value: 12.3 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 8.480
502.2 9.250
524.2 10.100
524.2 10.390
502.2 10.400
502.1 10.400
502.2 10.500
502.2 10.500
502.2 10.600
524.2 10.600
Method Reported
Value
502.2 10.700
524.2 10.900
502.2 11.000
524.2 11.200
502.2 11.200
524.2 11.200
524.2 11.490
524.2 11.500
502.2 11.510
524.2 11.600
Method Reported
Value
502.2 11.600
524.2 11.600
524.2 11.600
502.2 11.600
524.2 11.600
502.2 11.600
other 11.700
502.2 11.700
524.2 11.800
524.2 11.800
Method Reported
Value
524.2 11.800
524.2 11.800
524.2 11.900
502.2 11.900
524.2 12.000
524.2 12.070
524.2 12.100
524.2 12.100
502.2 12.100
502.2 12.200
Method Reported
Value
502.2 12.300
524.2 12.300
502.2 12.500
502.2 12.600
524.2 12.600
524.2 12.600
524.2 12.600
524.2 12.690
502.2 12.700
524.2 12.800
Method Reported
Value
524.2 12.900
524.2 13.000
502.2 13.100
524.2 13.100
502.2 13.100
502.2 13.200
502.2 13.370
524.2 13.400
502.2 13.400

Water Study: 35
True Value: 9.00 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 6.140
502.2 7.346
other 7.720
502.2 7.870
502.2 7.880
502.2 8.000
Method Reported
Value
524.2 8.000
524.2 8.080
502.2 8.300
524.2 8.320
524.2 8.360
524.2 8.390
Method Reported
Value
524.2 8.440
502.2 8.460
502.2 8.500
524.2 8.580
524.2 8.700
502.2 8.800
Method Reported
Value
524.2 8.820
524.2 8.830
524.2 8.880
524.2 8.900
524.2 9.000
524.2 9.050
Method Reported
Value
524.2 9.160
524.2 9.320
524.2 9.390
524.2 9.700
524.2 9.760
502.2 9.790
Method Reported
Value
524.2 10.100
502.2 10.200
502.2 10.900
502.2 12.000


Water Study: 36
True Value: 16.4 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 11.700
524.2 12.900
524.2 13.000
502.2 13.300
502.2 13.400
524.2 14.100
502.2 14.200
502.2 14.320
524.2 14.400
524.2 14.500
Method Reported
Value
524.2 14.600
502.2 14.600
502.2 14.600
524.2 14.700
502.2 14.700
524.2 14.700
524.2 14.700
524.2 14.800
524.2 15.000
502.2 15.000
Method Reported
Value
502.2 15.200
524.2 15.280
502.2 15.300
524.2 15.300
502.2 15.400
524.2 15.500
524.2 15.500
502.2 15.500
524.2 15.600
524.2 15.600
Method Reported
Value
502.2 15.700
502.2 15.700
524.2 15.800
524.2 15.800
other 15.900
524.2 15.900
502.2 15.900
524.2 15.960
502.2 16.000
524.2 16.000
Method Reported
Value
502.2 16.100
502.2 16.100
502.2 16.200
524.2 16.200
524.2 16.400
other 16.400
other 16.400
524.2 16.600
524.2 16.600
524.2 16.680
Method Reported
Value
524.2 16.700
502.2 16.800
524.2 17.200
524.2 17.400
524.2 17.450
524.2 18.300
524.2 18.800
524.2 19.340
502.2 20.200

Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-82
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 37
True Value: 14.2 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 11.000
502.2 11.600
502.2 12.400
524.2 12.700
524.2 12.800
524.2 12.800
502.2 13.000
524.2 13.000
Method Reported
Value
524.2 13.100
524.2 13.200
524.2 13.200
524.2 13.200
524.2 13.250
524.2 13.300
502.2 13.300
502.2 13.400
Method Reported
Value
524.2 13.400
524.2 13.500
502.2 13.500
524.2 13.700
other 13.800
524.2 13.800
524.2 13.900
524.2 13.930
Method Reported
Value
502.2 14.000
502.2 14.100
524.2 14.200
524.2 14.300
524.2 14.300
502.2 14.400
502.2 14.400
other 14.400
Method Reported
Value
502.2 14.400
524.2 14.400
524.2 14.500
502.2 14.500
502.2 14.900
502.2 14.900
502.2 15.100
524.2 15.200
Method Reported
Value
502.2 15.500
524.2 15.800
524.2 16.100
524.2 16.110
524.2 18.400
524.2 18.600
524.2 19.600

Water Study: 38
True Value: 18.3 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 13.000
524.2 15.600
502.2 15.700
524.2 15.700
502.2 15.700
524.2 15.900
524.2 15.900
524.2 16.000
524.2 16.000
524.2 16.060
Method Reported
Value
502.2 16.100
524.2 16.300
502.2 16.300
502.2 16.700
524.2 16.800
524.2 16.800
502.2 16.800
524.2 16.800
502.2 16.800
524.2 16.900
Method Reported
Value
502.2 16.900
524.2 16.900
other 17.000
524.2 17.000
524.2 17.100
524.2 17.200
524.2 17.200
524.2 17.300
502.2 17.300
524.2 17.300
Method Reported
Value
502.2 17.400
502.2 17.500
524.2 17.500
524.2 17.600
other 17.600
524.2 17.600
524.2 502.2.7
524.2 17.800
502.2 17.900
502.2 18.300
Method Reported
Value
524.2 18.300
524.2 18.400
524.2 18.400
524.2 18.500
524.2 18.700
524.2 18.750
502.2 18.800
524.2 18.900
524.2 19.000
524.2 19.500
Method Reported
Value
502.2 19.500
524.2 19.600
502.2 19.800
502.2 22.100
524.2 24.500





Water Study: 39
True Value: 12.2 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 8.530
524.2 10.300
524.2 10.400
524.2 10.800
502.2 10.800
524.2 11.000
502.2 11.000
524.2 11.100
Method Reported
Value
524.2 11.100
502.2 11.200
502.2 11.300
524.2 11.300
524.2 11.400
524.2 11.400
524.2 11.500
502.2 11.600
Method Reported
Value
502.2 11.800
524.2 11.800
524.2 11.800
524.2 11.800
524.2 11.830
524.2 11.900
524.2 12.000
524.2 12.100
Method Reported
Value
524.2 12.200
524.2 12.200
502.2 12.300
524.2 12.300
524.2 12.300
524.2 12.300
502.2 12.400
502.2 12.400
Method Reported
Value
524.2 12.500
502.2 12.600
502.2 12.600
502.2 12.600
502.2 12.900
524.2 13.300
502.2 13.800
524.2 14.000
Method Reported
Value
524.2 14.300
524.2 14.990
524.2 15.800





Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-83
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 40
True Value: 19.0 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 11.500
524.2 11.600
524.2 15.800
524.2 15.800
524.2 16.000
524.2 16.500
524.2 16.700
524.2 16.800
502.2 16.800
other 17.100
Method Reported
Value
502.2 17.100
502.2 17.400
524.2 17.500
524.2 17.700
502.2 17.700
524.2 17.700
524.2 17.700
524.2 17.700
524.2 17.700
524.2 17.800
Method Reported
Value
502.2 17.800
524.2 17.800
524.2 17.900
502.2 17.900
524.2 18.000
524.2 18.000
524.2 18.000
502.2 18.100
502.2 18.100
524.2 18.100
Method Reported
Value
524.2 18.200
524.2 18.400
524.2 18.400
524.2 18.600
502.2 18.600
524.2 18.800
524.2 18.800
524.2 18.800
502.2 18.900
524.2 18.900
Method Reported
Value
524.2 19.000
502.2 19.200
502.2 19.400
524.2 19.600
other 19.600
502.2 19.800
524.2 19.900
502.2 19.900
524.2 20.000
524.2 20.300
Method Reported
Value
524.2 20.300
524.2 20.500
524.2 21.700
524.2 21.800
524.2 21.900
524.2 22.300
502.2 23.000



Water Study: 41
True Value: 15.4 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 12.900
502.2 13.400
502.2 13.600
524.2 13.700
524.2 14.000
502.2 14.100
524.2 14.200
Method Reported
Value
524.2 14.200
524.2 14.500
524.2 14.600
524.2 14.600
524.2 14.600
524.2 14.700
524.2 14.800
Method Reported
Value
502.2 15.000
other 15.000
502.2 15.100
524.2 15.300
502.2 15.300
524.2 15.300
524.2 15.400
Method Reported
Value
524.2 15.400
524.2 15.460
524.2 15.500
524.2 15.500
524.2 15.500
524.2 15.500
524.2 15.600
Method Reported
Value
524.2 15.800
502.2 15.900
524.2 16.000
524.2 16.200
502.2 16.200
502.2 16.300
524.2 16.390
Method Reported
Value
502.2 17.000
524.2 17.200
524.2 18.000
502.2 18.000
502.2 18.100


Diquat
Water Study: 32
True Value: 28.2 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
549 6.300
549 18.000
Method Reported
Value
549 18.000
549 19.000
Method Reported
Value
other 22.300
other 24.100
Method Reported
Value
549 25.6000
549 38.800
Method Reported
Value
549 40.800
549 43.900
Method Reported
Value
549 101.000

Water Study: 34
True Value: 29.2 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
549 1.000
549 5.820
549 5.950
Method Reported
Value
549 9.590
549 12.500
549 14.200
Method Reported
Value
549 17.600
549 20.200
other 24.100
Method Reported
Value
549 24.100
549 25.600
549 26.150
Method Reported
Value
549 29.900
549 31.100
549 31.700
Method Reported
Value
549 35.600
549 38.100

Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-84
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 35
True Value: 37.4 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
549 10.200
549 11.900
549 12.300
Method Reported
Value
549 19.000
549 20.700
549 23.000
Method Reported
Value
549 24.300
549 27.600
549 28.900
Method Reported
Value
549 29.100
549 32.800
549 36.590
Method Reported
Value
other 44.000
549 125.000
549 7230.000
Method Reported
Value



Water Study: 36
True Value: 14.7 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
549.1 7.460
549.1 9.600
549.1 11.600
549.1 11.600
549.1 11.700
Method Reported
Value
549.1 12.900
549.1 13.200
549.1 14.200
549.1 14.600
549.1 15.000
Method Reported
Value
other 15.400
549.1 15.500
549.1 16.000
549.1 16.200
549.1 16.300
Method Reported
Value
549.1 16.400
549.1 16.700
other 17.300
549.1 18.800
549.1 19.600
Method Reported
Value
549.1 20.300
549.1 20.370
549.1 20.700
other 21.300
549.1 23.300
Method Reported
Value
549.1 33.000
549.1 34.300
other 38.600


Water Study: 37
True Value: 8.41 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
549.1 3.890
549.1 5.070
549.1 5.080
549.1 5.360
Method Reported
Value
other 6.100
549.1 6.180
549.1 6.430
549.1 6.460
Method Reported
Value
549.1 6.680
549.1 6.720
549.1 6.900
549.1 7.020
Method Reported
Value
549.1 7.300
549.1 7.770
549.1 8.050
other 8.140
Method Reported
Value
549.1 8.290
549.1 9.070
549.1 9.160
549.1 9.500
Method Reported
Value
549.1 17.300



Water Study: 38
True Value: 23.7 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
549.1 2.090
other 7.830
549.1 8.500
549.1 12.700
Method Reported
Value
549.1 13.600
549.1 15.000
549.1 15.400
549.1 16.100
Method Reported
Value
549.1 16.500
549.1 17.200
549.1 18.200
549.1 18.200
Method Reported
Value
549.1 18.200
549.1 18.600
549.1 19.500
549.1 20.500
Method Reported
Value
549.1 20.800
other 22.400
549.1 24.100
549.1 26.200
Method Reported
Value
549.1 30.150
549.1 31.900


Water Study: 39
True Value: 32.2 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
549.1 8.520
549.1 11.700
549.1 15.000
549.1 17.700
Method Reported
Value
549.1 19.700
549.1 24.000
549.1 24.200
549.1 24.500
Method Reported
Value
549.1 26.500
549.1 27.100
549.1 28.500
549.1 29.300
Method Reported
Value
549.1 29.500
549.1 30.200
549.1 30.200
549.1 31.500
Method Reported
Value
549.1 31.900
549.1 32.590
549.1 35.900
549.1 44.800
Method Reported
Value
549.1 97.700



Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-85
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 40
True Value: 14.8 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
549.1 5.300
549.1 5.400
549.1 5.740
549.1 6.320
549.1 7.550
Method Reported
Value
549.1 8.570
549.1 9.310
549.1 9.750
549.1 10.100
549.1 10.200
Method Reported
Value
549.1 11.200
549.1 11.500
549.1 11.500
549.1 12.100
549.1 12.200
Method Reported
Value
549.1 12.800
549.1 12.900
549.1 13.300
549.1 13.300
other 14.200
Method Reported
Value
549.1 14.400
549.1 15.900
549.1 16.700
549.1 18.000
549.1 21.300
Method Reported
Value
549.1 26.600
549.1 30.600



Water Study: 41
True Value: 44.0 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
549.1 24.400
549.1 31.500
549.1 33.400
Method Reported
Value
549.1 33.800
549.1 35.000
549.1 35.350
Method Reported
Value
549.1 35.900
549.1 37.200
549.1 39.200
Method Reported
Value
549.1 39.200
549.1 39.300
549.1 40.000
Method Reported
Value
549.1 44.100
549.1 45.000
549.1 45.100
Method Reported
Value
549.1 45.100
549.1 46.150

 Ethylene Dibromide

 Water Study: 24
 True Value: 0.480 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
504 0.352
504 0.380
504 0.390
other 0.397
504 0.400
504 0.401
Method Reported
Value
504 0.406
other 0.408
504 0.410
502.2 0.420
504 0.420
504 0.440
Method Reported
Value
504 0.452
504 0.453
504 0.453
524.1 0.470
504 0.477
504 0.478
Method Reported
Value
other 0.484
502.1 0.488
504 0.494
504 0.505
504 0.508
other 0.513
Method Reported
Value
504 0.515
504 0.515
504 0.516
502.2 0.520
504 0.538
504 0.562
Method Reported
Value
504 0.600
other 0.660




Water Study: 25
True Value: 0.944 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
504 0.747
504 0.778
504 0.817
Method Reported
Value
504 0.820
504 0.900
504 0.908
Method Reported
Value
504 0.910
504 0.913
other 0.930
Method Reported
Value
504 0.941
504 0.979
504 0.986
Method Reported
Value
504 0.997
other 1.030
other 1.060
Method Reported
Value
504 1.070
504 1.250
other 1.300
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-86
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 26
True Value: 0.434 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
504 0.363
504 0.365
504 0.365
504 0.370
504 0.392
504 0.407
Method Reported
Value
504 0.407
504 0.410
504 0.423
504 0.427
504 0.440
504 0.441
Method Reported
Value
other 0.449
504 0.450
504 0.452
other 0.456
504 0.459
504 0.460
Method Reported
Value
504 0.462
504 0.464
504 0.465
504 0.483
504 0.488
other 0.490
Method Reported
Value
504 0.491
504 0.491
504 0.522
504 0.528
other 0.530
other 0.542
Method Reported
Value
504 0.582
504 0.590
other 0.710
504 2.378
other 3.430

Water Study: 27
True Value: 1.45 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
504 1.010
other 1.030
504 1.170
Method Reported
Value
504 1.190
504 1.227
504 1.300
Method Reported
Value
504 1.350
504 1.350
504 1.400
Method Reported
Value
other 1.420
504 1.430
other 1.450
Method Reported
Value
504 1.500
other 1.540
504 1.900
Method Reported
Value
504 2.190
504 2.530

Water Study: 29
True Value: 0.850 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
504 0.420
504 0.533
504 0.651
other 0.669
504 0.751
Method Reported
Value
504 0.760
other 0.799
504 0.800
504 0.812
504 0.820
Method Reported
Value
504 0.844
other 0.846
504 0.852
504 0.860
504 0.874
Method Reported
Value
504 0.891
504 0.922
504 0.968
other 1.000
504 1.010
Method Reported
Value
other 1.050
other 1.104
504 1.580
504 2.180
504 20.200
Method Reported
Value





Water Study: 30
True Value: 1.39 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
504 0.989
504 1.120
502.2 1.150
504 1.180
other 1.180
504 1.200
504 1.210
Method Reported
Value
502.2 1.230
504 1.240
504 1.250
504 1.270
504 1.280
502.1 1.290
504 1.300
Method Reported
Value
other 1.300
504 1.300
504 1.320
504 1.320
504 1.320
504 1.320
other 1.330
Method Reported
Value
504 1.340
504 1.370
504 1.380
504 1.380
504 1.380
504 1.380
504 1.400
Method Reported
Value
524.2 1.400
504 1.430
504 1.450
other 1.479
504 1.480
504 1.530
504 1.570
Method Reported
Value
504 1.590
504 2.480
504 7.370
504 14.800



Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-87
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 31
True Value: 0.637 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
504 0.368
504 0.528
504 0.534
504 0.549
504 0.560
Method Reported
Value
504 0.564
504 0.580
504 0.592
504 0.600
other 0.604
Method Reported
Value
504 0.619
504 0.620
504 0.628
504 0.628
504 0.638
Method Reported
Value
504 0.647
504 0.653
504 0.655
504 0.660
504 0.670
Method Reported
Value
504 0.737
504 0.750
504 0.998
504 2.900
504 5.860
Method Reported
Value





Water Study: 32
True Value: 2.29 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 0.676
504 1.440
other 1.750
504 1.830
504 1.870
504 1.877
504 1.900
504 1.900
Method Reported
Value
504 1.910
504 1.910
504 1.930
504 1.930
other 1.990
504 2.044
504 2.050
504 2.080
Method Reported
Value
504 2.080
other 2.080
504 2.130
504 2.130
504 2.150
504 2.160
504 2.180
504 2.190
Method Reported
Value
504 2.2000
504 2.200
504 2.240
504 2.250
504 2.260
504 2.260
504 2.290
504 2.300
Method Reported
Value
504 2.330
504 2.380
504 2.380
504 2.380
504 2.400
504 2.400
504 2.410
504 2.470
Method Reported
Value
504 2.560
504 2.700
504 2.910
504 3.170




Water Study: 33
True Value: 0.143 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
504 0.142
504 0.150
other 0.167
504 0.169
Method Reported
Value
504 0.173
504 0.173
504 0.175
504 0.175
Method Reported
Value
504 0.176
504 0.176
504 0.177
504 0.177
Method Reported
Value
504 0.185
504 0.189
504 0.190
504 0.195
Method Reported
Value
504 0.198
504 0.200
504 0.204
504 0.210
Method Reported
Value
504 0.220
504 0.220
504 1.000
504 1.090
Water Study: 34
True Value: 0.406 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
504 0.091
504 0.281
504 0.321
504 0.326
504 0.344
504 0.347
504 0.354
504 0.357
Method Reported
Value
504 0.371
504 0.375
504 0.376
504 0.377
504 0.377
504 0.379
other 0.386
other 0.389
Method Reported
Value
other 0.392
504 0.392
504 0.393
504 0.394
504 0.395
504 0.399
other 0.400
504 0.402
Method Reported
Value
504 0.402
504 0.406
504 0.407
504 0.410
504 0.411
504 0.420
504 0.423
504 0.423
Method Reported
Value
504 0.435
504 0.438
504 0.439
504 0.440
504 0.440
504 0.445
504 0.457
504 0.486
Method Reported
Value
504 0.570
504 0.623
504 0.670
other 0.890
504 2.040



Water Study: 35
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
Final - March 2003

-------
 True Value: 0.609 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
504 0.360
504 0.400
504 0.446
504 0.498
504 0.511
Method Reported
Value
504 0.528
504 0.549
504 0.551
504 0.567
other 0.571
Method Reported
Value
504 0.572
504 0.583
504 0.590
504 0.596
504 0.598
Method Reported
Value
other 0.601
504 0.608
504 0.617
504 0.620
504 0.639
Method Reported
Value
504 0.641
504 0.646
504 0.656
504 0.679
other 0.689
Method Reported
Value
504 0.691
other 0.695
504 0.766
other 3.135
504 7.030
Water Study: 36
True Value: 0.283 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
other 0.171
504.1 0.216
504.1 0.230
504.1 0.231
551 0.246
other 0.251
504.1 0.251
504.1 0.259
504.1 0.260
Method Reported
Value
504.1 0.261
504.1 0.262
504.1 0.263
504.1 0.266
504.1 0.268
504.1 0.270
other 0.270
504.1 0.271
504.1 0.272
Method Reported
Value
504.1 0.274
504.1 0.274
504.1 0.274
504.1 0.275
504.1 0.276
504.1 0.276
504.1 0.278
504.1 0.280
504.1 0.280
Method Reported
Value
504.1 0.280
504.1 0.280
other 0.282
504.1 0.285
504.1 0.287
524.2 0.300
504.1 0.310
504.1 0.310
504.1 0.311
Method Reported
Value
504.1 0.311
504.1 0.312
504.1 0.322
504.1 0.323
504.1 0.325
504.1 0.325
other 0.333
504.1 0.335
504.1 0.336
Method Reported
Value
other 0.338
other 0.360
504.1 0.363
504.1 0.403
504.1 0.473
504.1 0.476



Water Study: 37
True Value: 0.138 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
504.1 0.123
504.1 0.125
504.1 0.126
504.1 0.130
504.1 0.131
504.1 0.133
504.1 0.133
Method Reported
Value
other 0.133
other 0.135
504.1 0.136
504.1 0.136
504.1 0.138
504.1 0.138
504.1 0.139
Method Reported
Value
other 0.139
504.1 0.141
504.1 0.141
504.1 0.143
504.1 0.145
504.1 0.146
504.1 0.146
Method Reported
Value
other 0.146
504.1 0.148
504.1 0.149
504.1 0.149
504.1 0.149
504.1 0.150
524.2 0.150
Method Reported
Value
other 0.157
504.1 0.160
504.1 0.165
504.1 0.165
504.1 0.170
504.1 0.188
504.1 0.192
Method Reported
Value
504.1 0.205
504.1 0.233
551 0.243
504.1 0.246
504.1 0.271
504.1 0.494
504.1 0.705
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-89
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 38
True Value: 0.336 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
504.1 0.130
504.1 0.245
504.1 0.257
504.1 0.276
504.1 0.282
504.1 0.286
other 0.287
504.1 0.292
Method Reported
Value
504.1 0.300
504.1 0.301
504.1 0.303
504.1 0.304
504.1 0.304
504.1 0.313
other 0.314
504.1 0.320
Method Reported
Value
504.1 0.320
504.1 0.330
504.1 0.333
504.1 0.333
504.1 0.337
551 0.338
other 0.342
504.1 0.343
Method Reported
Value
504.1 0.348
504.1 0.348
504.1 0.349
504.1 0.351
504.1 0.351
504.1 0.354
551 0.356
504.1 0.357
Method Reported
Value
504.1 0.359
504.1 0.361
504.1 0.361
524.2 0.364
504.1 0.367
504.1 0.368
504.1 0.370
504.1 0.376
Method Reported
Value
504.1 0.390
504.1 0.397
504.1 0.399
504.1 0.404
504.1 0.408
504.1 0.426
504.1 0.438
504.1 1.890
Water Study: 39
True Value: 0.227 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
504.1 0.137
504.1 0.174
504.1 0.185
504.1 0.185
504.1 0.190
504.1 0.194
Method Reported
Value
504.1 0.195
504.1 0.196
504.1 0.196
504.1 0.203
504.1 0.205
other 0.205
Method Reported
Value
504.1 0.208
504.1 0.213
504.1 0.214
504.1 0.216
504.1 0.216
504.1 0.222
Method Reported
Value
504.1 0.223
504.1 0.228
504.1 0.231
504.1 0.234
504.1 0.237
504.1 0.239
Method Reported
Value
504.1 0.242
524.2 0.243
504.1 0.247
504.1 0.250
504.1 0.254
504.1 0.259
Method Reported
Value
504.1 0.263
504.1 0.267
504.1 0.287
other 0.302
504.1 1.950
504.1 2.500
Water Study: 40
True Value: 0.638 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
504.1 0.297
other 0.447
504.1 0.455
504.1 0.530
504.1 0.531
504.1 0.541
504.1 0.543
504.1 0.548
504.1 0.569
Method Reported
Value
504.1 0.571
other 0.576
504.1 0.581
504.1 0.588
504.1 0.591
504.1 0.595
504.1 0.596
504.1 0.597
504.1 0.598
Method Reported
Value
504.1 0.599
504.1 0.601
504.1 0.601
504.1 0.608
504.1 0.612
504.1 0.616
504.1 0.621
504.1 0.623
504.1 0.628
Method Reported
Value
504.1 0.630
504.1 0.631
other 0.634
504.1 0.636
504.1 0.641
551 0.641
504 0.642
551 0.648
504.1 0.653
Method Reported
Value
504.1 0.658
504.1 0.668
504.1 0.671
504.1 0.675
504.1 0.677
other 0.678
504.1 0.696
504.1 0.700
551 0.702
Method Reported
Value
504.1 0.720
504.1 0.742
504.1 0.759
504.1 0.762
504.1 0.826




Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-90
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 41
True Value: 0.344 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
504.1 0.280
504.1 0.290
504.1 0.297
504.1 0.299
504.1 0.307
504.1 0.307
Method Reported
Value
504.1 0.308
504.1 0.318
504.1 0.319
504.1 0.320
504.1 0.323
504.1 0.325
Method Reported
Value
504.1 0.329
504.1 0.329
504.1 0.331
504.1 0.332
504.1 0.336
504.1 0.336
Method Reported
Value
504.1 0.339
504.1 0.342
504.1 0.345
504.1 0.349
504.1 0.361
504.1 0.365
Method Reported
Value
other 0.368
504.1 0.375
504.1 0.380
504.1 0.385
other 0.385
504.1 0.389
Method Reported
Value
504.1 0.389
504.1 0.390
504.1 0.394
504.1 0.395


Fluoride
Water Study: 24b
True Value: 1.30 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
414B 0.640
340.2 1.040

340.2 1.190

340.2 1.200
340.2 1.210
other 1.220
380- 1.220
75WE
340.3 1.220

340.2 1.230
380- 1.240
75WE
340.3 1.240
Method Reported
Value
340.3 1.260
340.2 1.270

380- 1.270
75WE
340.2 1.270
340.2 1.270
340.2 1.270
340.2 1.270

other 1.280

340.2 1.280
340.2 1.280

340.1 1.280
Method Reported
Value
340.2 1.280
340.2 1.280

340.2 1.290

340.2 1.290
129-71 W 1.290
129-71 W 1.290
340.2 1.290

380- 1.290
75WE
340.2 1.290
340.2 1.290

340.2 1.290
Method Reported
Value
340.2 1.290
340.2 1.296

380- 1.299
75WE
340.2 1.300
340.2 1.300
340.2 1.300
other 1.300

340.2 1.300

other 1.300
340.2 1.300

340.2 1.300
Method Reported
Value
340.2 1.310
380- 1.310
75WE
414B 1.310

other 1.310
414B 1.310
other 1.310
340.2 1.320

340.2 1.320

340.2 1.330
414B 1.330

340.2 1.330
Method Reported
Value
340.2 1.330
340.2 1.330

other 1.340

340.2 1.350
340.2 1.350
340.3 1.360
340.2 1.390







Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-91
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 24a
True Value: 1.72 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
414B 0.850
340.2 0.950

340.2 1.470

other 1.580

340.2 1.600
340.2 1.600
380- 1.610
75WE
340.3 1.620
340.2 1.630
414B 1.640

340.2 1.640

Method Reported
Value
340.2 1.640
340.2 1.650

380- 1.660
75WE
380- 1.660
75WE
340.2 1.660
340.3 1.660
other 1.680

340.2 1.680
340.2 1.680
380- 1.689
75WE
340.2 1.690

Method Reported
Value
340.2 1.700
380- 1.700
75WE
340.2 1.700

340.2 1.700

other 1.700
340.2 1.700
other 1.700

340.2 1.700
340.3 1.700
340.2 1.710

380- 1.710
75WE
Method Reported
Value
other 1.720
340.2 1.720

340.2 1.720

340.2 1.720

340.2 1.724
340.2 1.730
340.2 1.730

340.2 1.730
414B 1.740
340.2 1.740

other 1.740

Method Reported
Value
340.2 1.740
340.2 1.750

340.2 1.750

129-71 W 1.750

340.2 1.750
340.2 1.750
340.2 1.750

340.2 1.760
340.2 1.760
340.2 1.760

414B 1.770

Method Reported
Value
other 1.780
340.3 1.780

340.2 1.800

340.1 1.800

340.2 1.810
340.2 1.850
129-71 W 1.940







Water Study: 25a
True Value: 2.50 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
340.2 2.100
414B 2.140

129-71W 2.160

340.2 2.190

340.3 2.220
340.2 2.260
603 2.320
Method Reported
Value
129-71W 2.340
other 2.340

340.2 2.380

380- 2.397
75WE
340.2 2.400
340.2 2.420
340.2 2.430
Method Reported
Value
340.2 2.440
380- 2.450
75WE
380- 2.460
75WE
340.2 2.460

340.2 2.480
340.2 2.487
other 2.490
Method Reported
Value
340.2 2.490
340.2 2.490

340.2 2.500

340.2 2.500

414B 2.500
340.2 2.500
340.2 2.510
Method Reported
Value
340.2 2.520
340.2 2.520

340.1 2.520

340.2 2.520

other 2.530
340.2 2.540
340.3 2.550
Method Reported
Value
340.2 2.550
340.2 2.590

340.2 2.600

340.2 2.650

other 3.500


Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-92
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 25b
True Value: 1.50 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
340.2 1.300

340.3 1.300
340.2 1.310

414B 1.330
129-71W 1.340
340.2 1.380
603 1.380
Water Study: 26b
Method Reported
Value
other 1.440

other 1.450
380- 1.450
75WE
340.2 1.450
340.2 1.460
340.2 1.460
other 1.480

Method Reported
Value
340.2 1.480

340.2 1.490
340.2 1.490

340.2 1.490
340.2 1.490
340.2 1.500
340.2 1.500

Method Reported
Value
340.2 1.500

340.2 1.500
340.2 1.500

340.2 1.500
414B 1.510
340.2 1.520
other 1.520

Method Reported
Value
340.2 1.520

340.2 1.530
380- 1.534
75WE
340.2 1.540
129-71 W 1.540
340.2 1.540
340.2 1.550

Method Reported
Value
380- 1.550
75WE
340.2 1.550
340.2 1.550

340.3 1.600
340.1 1.640



True Value: 3.41 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
other 1.210

340.2 2.910
340.2 3.200

380- 3.200
75WE
340.2 3.200
340.3 3.200
340.2 3.229

340.2 3.260
380- 3.260
75WE
340.2 3.270

340.2 3.270
Method Reported
Value
340.2 3.280

other 3.280
340.2 3.290

340.2 3.300

340.2 3.300
other 3.300
340.2 3.300

340.2 3.300
414B 3.320

340.2 3.320

340.2 3.330
Method Reported
Value
340.2 3.340

340.2 3.350
340.1 3.350

414B 3.350

340.2 3.350
340.2 3.350
380- 3.357
75WE
340.2 3.360
340.2 3.380

340.2 3.380

340.2 3.390
Method Reported
Value
129- 3.390
71W
340.2 3.390
129- 3.390
71W
other 3.390

414B 3.400
340.2 3.400
340.2 3.420

340.2 3.420
340.2 3.420

129- 3.420
71W
340.2 3.430
Method Reported
Value
380- 3.445
75WE
340.2 3.450
340.2 3.450

340.2 3.460

other 3.460
340.2 3.460
340.2 3.480

340.2 3.480
340.2 3.500

340.3 3.500

other 3.540
Method Reported
Value
340.2 3.550

other 3.550
340.2 3.600

340.2 3.600

414B 3.760
340.3 3.770
340.2 3.800

340.2 4.350
340.2 4.350




Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-93
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 26a
True Value: 1.25 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
340.2 1.108
340.2 1.140
340.2 1.140

340.2 1.160

340.2 1.190
340.2 1.200

other 1.200

340.2 1.200
340.2 1.210
380- 1.210
75WE
other 1.210
Water Study: 27
Method Reported
Value
340.2 1.210
340.2 1.210
380- 1.218
75WE
340.2 1.220

129-71W 1.220
340.2 1.220

414B 1.230

340.2 1.230
340.2 1.240
340.2 1.240

340.2 1.240

Method Reported
Value
340.2 1.240
340.2 1.240
340.2 1.240

340.2 1.240

340.2 1.250
340.2 1.250

other 1.250

414B 1.250
340.2 1.250
340.2 1.260

340.2 1.260

Method Reported
Value
340.2 1.260
340.2 1.260
340.2 1.260

380- 1.260
75WE
340.2 1.260
340.2 1.260

129- 1.260
71W
other 1.270
other 1.270
other 1.270

340.2 1.270

Method Reported
Value
340.2 1.270
340.2 1.270
340.2 1.270

340.2 1.280

340.2 1.280
380- 1.287
75WE
414B 1.300

340.2 1.300
340.3 1.300
340.3 1.300

340.2 1.310

Method Reported
Value
340.2 1.340
340.2 1.350
414B 1.360

340.1 1.370

129-71W 1.380
340.2 1.420

340.3 1.470

other 3.480





True Value: 4.35 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
340.2 1.100
340.2 2.100
340.2 2.170

414B 2.190
340.2 3.810

340.2 3.920
603 4.030
Method Reported
Value
other 4.100
414B 4.190
340.2 4.200

340.1 4.250
D1179- 4.250
72B
340.2 4.250
340.2 4.260
Method Reported
Value
340.2 4.300
340.2 4.300
340.2 4.300

340.2 4.310
340.2 4.320

340.2 4.330
340.2 4.330
Method Reported
Value
340.2 4.330
340.3 4.330
other 4.340

340.2 4.350
380- 4.360
75WE
other 4.378
340.2 4.400
Method Reported
Value
414B 4.440
340.2 4.450
380- 4.450
75WE
129-71W 4.470
other 4.520

340.2 4.530
340.2 4.550
Method Reported
Value
129-71W 4.650
340.2 4.720







Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-94
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 29
True Value: 0.330 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
340.2 0.266

340.2 0.270

340.2 0.290
340.2 0.290

380- 0.302
75WE
340.2 0.303
Water Study: 30
Method Reported
Value
340.3 0.305

380- 3.070
75WE
340.2 3.100
other 0.310

340.2 0.310

340.2 0.314

Method Reported
Value
340.3 0.315

340.2 0.320

340.2 0.320
other 0.320

other 0.330

340.2 0.330

Method Reported
Value
129- 0.330
71W
340.2 0.332

413B 0.332
380- 0.338
75WE
340.2 0.340

414B 0.340

Method Reported
Value
340.2 0.340

340.2 0.340

340.2 0.340
129-71W 0.340

340.2 0.350

340.2 0.350

Method Reported
Value
380- 0.360
75WE
other 0.360

340.2 0.393






True Value: 7.90 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
380- 1.520
75WE
340.2 5.540

340.2 6.180
other 7.190

340.2 7.200
other 7.500

other 7.500

340.3 7.510

414B 7.540
other 7.540

340.1 7.550
Method Reported
Value
340.2 7.570

340.2 7.650

340.2 7.650
380- 7.650
75WE
340.2 7.680
340.2 7.700

340.2 7.720

380- 7.721
75WE
340.2 7.750
129-71W 7.760

340.2 7.770
Method Reported
Value
340.2 7.780

340.2 7.800

340.2 7.800
340.2 7.800

340.2 7.810
340.2 7.810

340.2 7.820

340.2 7.830

340.2 7.830
414B 7.840

340.2 7.850
Method Reported
Value
340.2 7.850

340.2 7.860

340.2 7.900
340.2 7.900

340.2 7.910
380- 7.930
75WE
340.2 7.940

380- 7.940
75WE
340.3 7.950
380- 7.980
75WE
340.2 7.990
Method Reported
Value
340.2 8.000

380- 8.000
75WE
340.2 8.000
340.2 8.030

340.2 8.040
340.2 8.050

380- 8.060
75WE
340.2 8.060

other 8.080
414B 8.105

340.2 8.125
Method Reported
Value
413E 8.170

other 8.180

340.2 8.190
414B 8.225

340.2 8.550
340.2 16.800









Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-95
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 31
True Value: 5.70 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
340.1 4.200

340.2 5.300
other 5.340

340.3 5.370
340.2 5.420
340.2 5.430
Water Study: 32
Method Reported
Value
340.2 5.440

340.2 5.440
380- 5.450
75WE
340.2 5.500
129-71W 5.520
340.2 5.540

Method Reported
Value
340.2 5.544

414B 5.560
340.2 5.600

340.2 5.640
340.2 5.640
340.2 5.650

Method Reported
Value
380- 5.650
75WE
340.2 5.660
340.2 5.662

340.3 5.670
340.2 5.690
340.2 5.690

Method Reported
Value
340.2 5.700

other 5.780
414B 5.790

other 5.800
340.2 5.800
129-71W 5.800

Method Reported
Value
340.2 5.830

340.2 6.000
other 6.130





True Value: 2.00 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
other 1.340
340.1 1.640
129-71 W 1.790

340.2 1.800
340.2 1.800

340.2 1.860

380- 1.860
75WE
413E 1.880

340.2 1.890

340.2 1.900

340.2 1.930

other 1.930
Method Reported
Value
340.2 1.930
340.3 1.930
380- 1.940
75WE
340.2 1.940
340.2 1.950

380- 1.950
75WE
340.2 1.950

340.2 1.950

380- 1.960
75WE
340.2 1.960

340.2 1.960

340.2 1.970
Method Reported
Value
340.2 1.970
340.2 1.970
380- 1.975
75WE
414B 1.975
340.2 1.980

414B 1.980

340.2 1.980

380- 1.990
75WE
414B 1.990

340.1 1.990

380- 1.990
75WE
340.3 1.990
Method Reported
Value
340.2 1.990
414B 2.000
340.2 2.000

340.2 2.000
380- 2.000
75WE
340.2 2.000

340.2 2.000

340.2 2.009

340.2 2.010

380- 2.010
75WE
340.2 2.020

340.2 2.020
Method Reported
Value
340.2 2.020
340.2 2.020
340.2 2.020

340.2 2.030
340.3 2.030

other 2.038

340.2 2.040

340.2 2.040

340.2 2.040

other 2.040

340.2 2.040

340.2 2.050
Method Reported
Value
340.2 2.060
340.2 2.070
340.2 2.070

340.2 2.077
340.2 2.140

340.2 3.340

340.2 4.700










Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-96
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 33
True Value: 6.60 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
340.2 5.590
340.1 5.930
340.1 6.340.2

340.2 6.170
340.2 6.190
340.3 6.200

Method Reported
Value
340.2 6.240
other 6.300
other 6.320

340.2 6.370
340.2 6.400
340.2 6.440

Method Reported
Value
414B 6.450
340.2 6.480
380- 6.480
75WE
other 6.490
340.2 6.500
380- 6.500
75WE
Method Reported
Value
340.2 6.500
414B 6.510
340.2 6.530

414B 6.540
340.2 6.550
340.2 6.560

Method Reported
Value
129-71W 6.560
340.2 6.573
340.2 6.585

340.2 6.610
340.2 6.610
340.2 6.643

Method Reported
Value
340.2 6.670
other 6.690
340.2 6.720

340.2 6.750
340.2 6.800


Water Study: 34
True Value: 1.10 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
340.1 0.870

380- 0.959
75WE
300 0.960

340.2 1.000

other 1.020
340.2 1.030

340.2 1.040
340.2 1.040
other 1.050
340.2 1.050

other 1.060

Method Reported
Value
380- 1.060
75WE
340.2 1.060

340.2 1.060

380- 1.060
75WE
340.3 1.070
414B 1.070

340.1 1.070
414B 1.072
340.2 1.080
380- 1.080
75WE
340.2 1.080

Method Reported
Value
340.2 1.080

340.2 1.080

other 1.080

340.2 1.080

340.2 1.080
380- 1.084
75WE
340.2 1.090
340.2 1.090
340.2 1.090
340.2 1.090

340.2 1.090

Method Reported
Value
340.2 1.090

340.2 1.100

340.2 1.100

340.2 1.100

340.3 1.100
other 1.100

340.2 1.100
340.2 1.100
340.2 1.102
340.2 1.110

340.2 1.120

Method Reported
Value
340.2 1.120

340.2 1.120

380- 1.120
75WE
413E 1.120

340.2 1.120
340.2 1.120

340.2 1.130
340.2 1.130
340.2 1.130
340.2 1.140

380- 1.140
75WE
Method Reported
Value
340.2 1.140

other 1.142

340.2 1.150

340.1 1.160

29 1.160
340.2 1.180

other 1.190
340.2 1.230
340.2 1.620
340.2 21.080



Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-97
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 35
True Value: 3.80 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
380- 1.770
75WE
340.2 3.450
other 3.470
380- 3.490
75WE
340.2 3.520

380- 3.540
75WE
340.3 3.560
340.2 3.570
Water Study: 36
Method Reported
Value
340.1 3.610

340.2 3.680
413E 3.680
340.1 3.700

380- 3.700
75WE
340.2 3.710

340.2 3.720
340.2 3.740

Method Reported
Value
340.2 3.750

340.1 3.760
340.2 3.780
414B 3.780

other 3.790

other 3.790

340.2 3.790
340.2 3.790

Method Reported
Value
340.2 3.800

340.2 3.800
340.2 3.810
603 3.810

340.2 3.830

340.2 3.840

340.2 3.840
340.2 3.880

Method Reported
Value
340.2 3.880

340.2 3.900
340.2 3.900
340.2 3.900

340.2 3.900

340.2 3.920

340.2 3.926
414B 3.930

Method Reported
Value
other 3.960

340.2 3.980
other 3.980









True Value: 7.20 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
other 1.600

413E 6.640

other 6.660

Manual 6.680
Elec.
Manual 6.800
Elec.
other 6.840

Manual 6.950
Elec.
380- 6.960
75WE
other 6.970

129-71W 7.010

380- 7.010
75WE
Method Reported
Value
Manual 7.060
Elec.
380- 7.090
75WE
300 7.110

Manual 7.130
Elec.
other 7.150

Manual 7.160
Elec.
Manual 7.170
Elec.
300 7.180

380- 7.190
75WE
300 7.190

340.1 7.200

Method Reported
Value
Manual 7.220
Elec.
300 7.230

340.2 7.230

340.2 7.240

380- 7.240
75WE
Manual 7.250
Elec.
Manual 7.250
Elec.
380- 7.260
75WE
Manual 7.260
Elec.
129-71W 7.260

380- 7.270
75WE
Method Reported
Value
Manual 7.280
Elec.
340.2 7.280

Manual 7.280
Elec.
Manual 7.300
Elec.
other 7.300

340.2 7.300

Manual 7.310
Elec.
other 7.320

380- 7.340
75WE
Manual 7.350
Elec.
Manual 7.350
Elec.
Method Reported
Value
300 7.360

Manual 7.370
Elec.
300 7.380

414B 7.380

other 7.383

300 7.390

300 7.390

340.2 7.410

Manual 7.420
Elec.
Manual 7.450
Elec.
380- 7.460
75WE
Method Reported
Value
Manual 7.530
Elec.
Manual 7.600
Elec.
other 7.690

380- 7.750
75WE
Manual 7.990
Elec.
Manual 8.050
Elec.










Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-98
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 37
True Value: 1.80 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
Manual 0.871
Elec.
300 1.536

300 1.600

Manual 1.600
Elec.
Manual 1 .605
Elec.
Manual 1.610
Elec.
other 1.630

340.2 1.640

Manual 1 .640
Elec.
Manual 1.650
Elec.
Method Reported
Value
Manual 1.660
Elec.
300 1.660

380- 1.660
75WE
380- 1.660
75WE
Manual 1.670
Elec.
300 1.670

380- 1.680
75WE
300 1.680

300 1.690

Manual 1.690
Elec.
Method Reported
Value
Manual 1.690
Elec.
Manual 1.700
Elec.
380- 1.700
75WE
300 1.710

Manual 1.710
Elec.
Manual 1.710
Elec.
Manual 1.720
Elec.
Manual 1.730
Elec.
129-71 W 1.730

380- 1.730
75WE
Method Reported
Value
Auto 1.730
Aliza
Manual 1.740
Elec.
380- 1.740
75WE
Auto 1.740
Aliza
other 1.740

300 1.740

340.2 1.750

Manual 1.750
Elec.
380- 1.750
75WE
300 1.760

Method Reported
Value
Manual 1.770
Elec.
Manual 1.780
Elec.
Manual 1.789
Elec.
Manual 1.790
Elec.
Manual 1.790
Elec.
Manual 1.790
Elec.
other 1.800

Manual 1.800
Elec.
Manual 1.802
Elec.
Manual 1.810
Elec.
Method Reported
Value
Manual 1.820
Elec.
other 1.830

Manual 1.840
Elec.
other 1.940

Manual 2.050
Elec.










Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-99
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 38
True Value: 4.70 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
other 4.060

300 4.330

Manual 4.380
Elec.
Manual 4.410
Elec.
Manual 4.430
Elec.
other 4.440

Manual 4.450
Elec.
Manual 4.460
Elec.
Manual 4.480
Elec.
Manual 4.490
Elec.
340.2 4.490

Method Reported
Value
300 4.490

Manual 4.500
Elec.
129-71W 4.500

Manual 4.500
Elec.
Manual 4.510
Elec.
Manual 4.520
Elec.
Manual 4.530
Elec.
Manual 4.530
Elec.
340.2 4.540

Auto 4.540
Aliza
Manual 4.550
Elec.
Method Reported
Value
129-71W 4.550

380- 4.550
75WE
other 4.560

380- 4.580
75WE
Manual 4.580
Elec.
Manual 4.590
Elec.
Manual 4.600
Elec.
Manual 4.600
Elec.
380- 4.600
75WE
Manual 4.600
Elec.
Manual 4.600
Elec.
Method Reported
Value
Manual 4.600
Elec.
Manual 4.600
Elec.
380- 4.600
75WE
Manual 4.610
Elec.
Auto 4.610
Aliza
other 4.610

300 4.620

300 4.650

other 4.701

300 4.720

Manual 4.730
Elec.
Method Reported
Value
Auto 4.730
Aliza
Manual 4.735
Elec.
Manual 4.740
Elec.
Manual 4.740
Elec.
Manual 4.740
Elec.
Manual 4.750
Elec.
300 4.770

380- 4.780
75WE
Manual 4.780
Elec.
other 4.800

Manual 4.800
Elec.
Method Reported
Value
Manual 4.842
Elec.
340.2 4.850

300 4.860

300 4.870

Manual 4.890
Elec.
Manual 4.900
Elec.
Manual 4.920
Elec.
300 4.940

300 4.990

300 5.110



Water Study: 39
True Value: 2.90 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
300 2.470

Manual 2.580
Elec.
Manual 2.590
Elec.
other 2.600

300 2.610

Manual 2.640
Elec.
Manual 2.650
Elec.
Manual 2.650
Elec.
300 2.650

Method Reported
Value
Manual 2.660
Elec.
Manual 2.660
Elec.
300 2.670

Manual 2.670
Elec.
380- 2.670
75WE
380- 2.670
75WE
Manual 2.680
Elec.
other 2.680

Manual 2.690
Elec.
Method Reported
Value
Manual 2.700
Elec.
Manual 2.700
Elec.
Manual 2.700
Elec.
Manual 2.700
Elec.
other 2.720

300 2.730

Manual 2.740
Elec.
Manual 2.740
Elec.
Manual 2.740
Elec.
Method Reported
Value
Manual 2.740
Elec.
Manual 2.740
Elec.
other 2.740

other 2.750

Manual 2.760
Elec.
380- 2.760
75WE
Manual 2.770
Elec.
380- 2.810
75WE
other 2.820

Method Reported
Value
Manual 2.820
Elec.
Auto 2.820
Aliza
Manual 2.820
Elec.
Manual 2.840
Elec.
Manual 2.850
Elec.
380- 2.850
75WE
Manual 2.850
Elec.
Manual 2.850
Elec.
300 2.860

Method Reported
Value
300 2.880

Manual 2.890
Elec.
Manual 2.900
Elec.
Manual 2.910
Elec.
Manual 2.920
Elec.
Manual 2.940
Elec.
300 2.960

Manual 3.050
Elec.
300 3.170

Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-100
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 40
True Value: 1.40 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
Manual 1.140
Elec.
Manual 1.160
Elec.
Manual 1.180
Elec.
Manual 1.180
Elec.
300 1.200

Manual 1.200
Elec.
380- 1.200
75WE
380- 1.210
75WE
other 1.210

Manual 1.210
Elec.
Manual 1.220
Elec.
Method Reported
Value
Manual 1.230
Elec.
Manual 1.230
Elec.
Manual 1.230
Elec.
300 1.240

Manual 1.240
Elec.
other 1.240

other 1.240

300 1.240

Manual 1.240
Elec.
300 1.250

380- 1.250
75WE
Method Reported
Value
Manual 1.250
Elec.
Manual 1.250
Elec.
Manual 1.250
Elec.
380- 1.250
75WE
300 1.260

Manual 1.260
Elec.
300 1.260

300 1.260

Manual 1.260
Elec.
300 1.260

Manual 1.270
Elec.
Method Reported
Value
300 1.270

Auto 1.270
Aliza
Auto 1.270
Aliza
Manual 1.270
Elec.
300 1.280

300 1.280

380- 1.280
75WE
380- 1.280
75WE
Manual 1.290
Elec.
Manual 1.290
Elec.
Manual 1.297
Elec.
Method Reported
Value
Manual 1.300
Elec.
Manual 1.300
Elec.
Manual 1.300
Elec.
380- 1.300
75WE
Manual 1.300
Elec.
Manual 1.300
Elec.
Manual 1.309
Elec.
Manual 1.310
Elec.
340.2 1.310

300 1.310

other 1.310

Method Reported
Value
Manual 1.310
Elec.
Manual 1.320
Elec.
Auto 1.320
Aliza
380- 1.330
75WE
Manual 1.350
Elec.
other 1.360

Manual 1.360
Elec.
Manual 1.380
Elec.
Manual 1.390
Elec.
300 1.400

Manual 1.440
Elec.
Water Study: 41
True Value: 6.20 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
Manual 1.240
Elec.
other 5.700

300 5.750

Manual 5.800
Elec.
Manual 5.800
Elec.
Manual 5.810
Elec.
other 5.820

Manual 5.850
Elec.
Method Reported
Value
Manual 5.870
Elec.
300 5.890

Manual 5.890
Elec.
Manual 5.902
Elec.
Manual 5.920
Elec.
other 5.930

Manual 5.930
Elec.
Auto 5.950
Aliza
Method Reported
Value
Manual 5.950
Elec.
300 5.960

300 5.970

380- 5.980
75WE
Manual 6.000
Elec.
Manual 6.010
Elec.
Manual 6.020
Elec.
380- 6.030
75WE
Method Reported
Value
Manual 6.030
Elec.
Manual 6.050
Elec.
300 6.060

380- 6.090
75WE
300 6.140

300 6.170

Manual 6.170
Elec.
Manual 6.200
Elec.
Method Reported
Value
380- 6.200
75WE
Manual 6.200
Elec.
300 6.210

380- 6.240
75WE
other 6.240

Manual 6.270
Elec.
Manual 6.390
Elec.
300 6.480

Method Reported
Value
380- 6.490
75WE
Manual 6.570
Elec.
Manual 6.590
Elec.
Manual 6.670
Elec.
300 7.070

Manual 8.040
Elec.




Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-101
Final - March 2003

-------
Glyphosate





Water Study: 32
True Value
Method
547
547
547
: 447 ug/L
Reported
Value
360.000
360.000
411.000
Method
547
547
547

Reported
Value
428.000
438.300
440.000
Method
547
547
547

Reported
Value
443.000
446.000
459.000
Method
547
547
547

Reported
Value
461.000
476.000
482.000
Method
547
other
547

Reported
Value
483.000
490.000
512.000
Method Reported
Value



Water Study: 33
True Value
Method
other
547
: 308 ug/L
Reported
Value
192.000
248.000
Method
other
547

Reported
Value
255.000
263.000
Method
547
547

Reported
Value
268.000
287.000
Method
547
547

Reported
Value
306.000
307.000
Method
547
547

Reported
Value
317.000
323.000
Method Reported
Value
547 326.3999

Water Study: 34
True Value
Method
547
547
547
other
: 438 ug/L
Reported
Value
284.000
397.000
396.000
390.000
Method
547
547
547
547

Reported
Value
398.000
407.000
416.000
416.000
Method
547
547
547
547

Reported
Value
420.000
420.000
424.000
425.000
Method
547
547
547
547

Reported
Value
428.000
441.400
446.000
453.000
Method
547
547
547
547

Reported
Value
454.000
463.000
464.000
490.000
Method Reported
Value
547 510.000
547 728.000


Water Study: 35
True Value
Method
547
547
547
: 665 ug/L
Reported
Value
57.200
562.000
573.000
Method
547
547
547

Reported
Value
609.000
623.000
626.000
Method
547
547
547

Reported
Value
637.000
650.000
651.000
Method
547
547
547

Reported
Value
654.000
682.000
690.000
Method
547
547
other

Reported
Value
732.000
750.000
1515.000
Method Reported
Value



Water Study: 36
True Value
Method
547
6651
other
547
547
: 528 ug/L
Reported
Value
356.000
453.000
468.000
478.000
490.000
Method
547
547
other
547
547

Reported
Value
490.000
492.000
502.000
505.000
512.000
Method
547
547
547
547
547

Reported
Value
513.000
515.000
518.000
520.000
520.000
Method
547
547
547
547
547

Reported
Value
525.000
536.000
538.000
552.500
554.000
Method
other
6651
547
other
547

Reported
Value
559.000
562.000
567.000
570.000
572.000
Method Reported
Value
547 579.000
547 584.000



Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-102
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 37
True Value: 780 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
547 7.940
547 74.800
547 605.000
547 628.000
Method Reported
Value
547 663.000
other 720.000
6651 725.000
547 739.000
Method Reported
Value
547 740.000
547 751.000
547 777.000
547 781.000
Method Reported
Value
547 785.000
547 785.000
547 786.000
547 798.000
Method Reported
Value
547 802.000
547 808.100
547 815.000
547 820.000
Method Reported
Value
547 861.000
547 1590.000


Water Study: 38
True Value: 410 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
547 292.000
other 345.000
547 399.000
547 401.000
547 406.400
Method Reported
Value
547 409.000
547 410.000
547 411.000
other 420.000
547 420.000
Method Reported
Value
547 430.000
547 435.000
547 443.000
547 444.000
547 445.000
Method Reported
Value
547 450.000
547 455.000
547 461.000
547 473.000
547 473.000
Method Reported
Value
547 481.000
547 486.000
547 489.000
other 535.000
other 580.000
Method Reported
Value





Water Study: 39
True Value: 620 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
547 450.000
547 545.000
547 580.000
547 583.000
Method Reported
Value
547 599.000
547 612.000
547 622.000
547 623.000
Method Reported
Value
547 631.000
547 633.000
547 637.000
547 638.000
Method Reported
Value
547 639.000
547 640.000
547 648.000
547 652.000
Method Reported
Value
547 658.000
547 659.000
547 677.000
547 683.000
Method Reported
Value
6651 712.000
547 726.000


Water Study: 40
True Value: 375 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
547 239.500
547 336.000
547 340.000
547 355.000
547 360.000
Method Reported
Value
547 360.600
547 369.000
547 370.000
547 377.000
547 380.000
Method Reported
Value
547 381.000
other 385.000
547 385.000
547 386.000
547 388.000
Method Reported
Value
547 394.000
547 394.000
547 396.000
547 398.000
547 399.000
Method Reported
Value
547 403.000
other 405.000
547 408.000
547 411.000
547 415.000
Method Reported
Value
547 416.000
547 416.000
547 433.000
547 435.000
547 460.000
Water Study: 41
True Value: 560 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
547 487.000
547 512.000
547 515.000
Method Reported
Value
547 519.000
547 538.000
547 538.000
Method Reported
Value
547 561.900
547 564.000
547 567.000
Method Reported
Value
547 571.000
547 572.900
547 576.000
Method Reported
Value
547 604.000
547 606.000
547 606.000
Method Reported
Value
547 607.000
547 644.000

Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-103
Final - March 2003

-------
Heptachlor

Water Study: 24b
True Value: 3.15 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
505 0.953
508 2.124
other 2.220
505 2.260
other 2.340
505 2.370
Method Reported
Value
508 2.560
505 2.570
other 2.570
508 2.580
508 2.580
508 2.650
Method Reported
Value
other 2.660
other 2.660
other 2.680
508 2.680
508 2.710
505 2.720
Method Reported
Value
505 2.831
508 2.840
505 2.870
other 2.900
505 3.010
505 3.150
Method Reported
Value
505 3.250
505 3.260
505 3.270
other 3.300
505 3.348
505 3.740
Method Reported
Value
505 4.034
505 4.130
505 6.010



Water Study: 24a
True Value: 0.263 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
505 0.065
505 0.186
other 0.193
other 0.196
505 0.198
other 0.206
Method Reported
Value
508 0.208
505 0.216
508 0.219
other 0.220
508 0.224
other 0.225
Method Reported
Value
505 0.229
505 0.234
505 0.238
other 0.240
508 0.241
508 0.242
Method Reported
Value
508 0.244
505 0.250
505 0.251
508 0.260
505 0.262
505 0.265
Method Reported
Value
other 0.267
505 0.272
505 0.280
505 0.290
505 0.294
other 0.310
Method Reported
Value
508 0.335
505 0.350
505 1.777



Water Study: 25b
True Value: 0.1 13 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
508 0.071
508 0.074
508 0.078
Method Reported
Value
508 0.079
other 0.0827
508 0.084
Method Reported
Value
505 0.086
505 0.089
508 0.090
Method Reported
Value
other 0.096
other 0.0974
508 0.111
Method Reported
Value
505 0.114
508 0.115
other 0.116
Method Reported
Value
505 0.117
508 0.127
508 0.132
Water Study: 25a
True Value: 1.42 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
508 0.972
other 1.020
other 1.050
508 1.090
Method Reported
Value
508 1.140
505 1.187
508 1.190
508 1.210
Method Reported
Value
508 1.230
505 1.260
508 1.291
other 1.330
Method Reported
Value
508 1.390
508 1.400
508 1.430
505 1.460
Method Reported
Value
505 1.520
other 1.530
508.1 1.640

Method Reported
Value




Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-104
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 26
True Value: 2.27 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
508 0.514
505 1.178
other 1.510
508.1 1.530
other 1.650
505 1.690
Method Reported
Value
other 1.750
508 1.760
508 1.860
505 1.910
508 1.930
508 1.980
Method Reported
Value
525 2.030
505 2.101
other 2.140
508 2.150
other 2.168
505 2.190
Method Reported
Value
505 2.200
505 2.210
508 2.230
505 2.240
508 2.320
525 2.340
Method Reported
Value
505 2.350
505 2.390
other 2.400
508 2.460
505 2.880
505 3.090
Method Reported
Value
525.1 4.516





Water Study: 27
True Value: 0.642 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
508 0.381
508 0.411
508 0.413
other 0.415
Method Reported
Value
525 0.421
505 0.430
508 0.437
508 0.492
Method Reported
Value
508 0.530
508 0.543
508 0.550
505 0.576
Method Reported
Value
505 0.577
508 0.618
505 0.628
508 0.630
Method Reported
Value
508 0.638
508 0.639
508 0.660
other 0.669
Method Reported
Value
508 0.678
505 0.698
508 0.817
505 1.040
Water Study: 29
True Value: 0.370 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
508 0.150
other 0.232
508 0.238
508 0.240
Method Reported
Value
508 0.246
508 0.258
508 0.264
508 0.284
Method Reported
Value
508 0.290
508 0.294
other 0.310
505 0.310
Method Reported
Value
508 0.315
other 0.317
508 0.318
508 0.326
Method Reported
Value
other 0.330
other 0.340
505 0.350
505 0.358
Method Reported
Value
508 0.380
508 0.381
505 0.395
508 0.400
Water Study: 30
True Value: 1.38 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
505 0.506
505 0.663
505 0.720
508 0.847
508 0.875
508 0.933
508 0.940
508 0.949
Method Reported
Value
other 0.958
505 0.988
other 0.990
508 1.000
508 1.030
508 1.030
508 1.070
505 1.090
Method Reported
Value
505 1.100
508 1.100
508 1.110
other 1.130
505 1.160
508 1.170
505 1.180
508 1.190
Method Reported
Value
508 1.200
other 1.202
other 1.210
other 1.210
508 1.230
508 1.230
505 1.240
508 1.260
Method Reported
Value
508 1.260
508 1.270
508 1.287
508 1.320
other 1.330
508 1.330
other 1.350
508 1.390
Method Reported
Value
508 1.420
other 1.480
505 1.500
508 1.520
508 1.520
505 1.530
508 1.530

Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-105
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 31
True Value: 1.44 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
508 0.514
505 0.523
505 0.531
525.1 0.654
508 0.875
Method Reported
Value
508 0.890
505 0.924
508 0.948
508 0.968
508 0.980
Method Reported
Value
508 0.985
508 1.040
508 1.120
508 1.150
508 1.220
Method Reported
Value
other 1.220
508 1.224
508 1.252
508 1.330
508 1.340
Method Reported
Value
508 1.340
508 1.390
508 1.430
508 1.510
other 1.600
Method Reported
Value
508 1.680




Water Study: 32
True Value: 0.443 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
508 0.070
508 0.107
508 0.251
525.1 0.288
508 0.288
508 0.310
508 0.321
505 0.323
508 0.324
525.1 0.330
Method Reported
Value
508 0.330
525.1 0.332
508 0.337
508 0.349
508 0.349
508 0.352
other 0.353
505 0.356
505 0.358
508 0.363
Method Reported
Value
508 0.369
508 0.380
505 0.383
508 0.384
508 0.386
other 0.386
508 0.390
525.1 0.394
508 0.395
525.1 0.395
Method Reported
Value
other 0.399
508 0.405
508 0.408
508 0.426
505 0.433
508 0.445
508 0.446
505 0.450
508 0.452
508 0.460
Method Reported
Value
508 0.462
505 0.467
508 0.469
505 0.472
508 0.481
508 0.489
505 0.493
525.1 0.503
505 0.508
505 0.510
Method Reported
Value
505 0.529
505 0.532
525.1 0.590
508 0.620
508 0.636
525.1 0.860




Water Study: 33
True Value: 1.73 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
505 0.020
other 0.608
508 0.810
508 1.060
508 1.060
508 1.190
Method Reported
Value
508 1.200
508 1.220
508 1.250
525.1 1.250
508 1.260
508 1.280
Method Reported
Value
508 1.280
508 1.290
505 1.300
505 1.314
508 1.370
508 1.402
Method Reported
Value
525.1 1.420
508 1.430
508 1.450
525.1 1.460
525.1 1.490
525.1 1.490
Method Reported
Value
508 1.500
508 1.550
505 1.560
525.1 1.580
508 1.700
505 1.710
Method Reported
Value
508 1.780
505 1.980




Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-106
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 34
True Value: 0.914 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
508 0.351
505 0.358
525.1 0.490
508 0.495
525.1 0.546
508 0.548
508 0.567
508 0.588
508 0.595
Method Reported
Value
508 0.618
other 0.620
505 0.638
508 0.639
508 0.707
508 0.713
508 0.714
505 0.720
505 0.720
Method Reported
Value
505 0.724
508 0.728
525.1 0.734
505 0.736
508 0.751
508 0.758
505 0.770
508 0.775
508 0.780
Method Reported
Value
508 0.800
525.1 0.812
508 0.819
508 0.822
508 0.823
505 0.830
508 0.840
525.1 0.850
508 0.853
Method Reported
Value
525.1 0.862
525.1 0.871
505 0.883
525.1 0.885
505 0.899
505 0.905
505 0.906
505 0.911
508 0.916
Method Reported
Value
508 0.930
other 0.970
505 1.005
525.1 1.090
508 1.220
508 1.490



Water Study: 35
True Value: 2.54 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
508 1.080
525.1 1.344
508 1.360
508 1.440
508 1.670
508 1.700
Method Reported
Value
508 1.820
508 1.893
508 1.900
505 1.920
508 1.990
other 2.050
Method Reported
Value
508 2.100
508 2.130
505 2.190
508 2.240
525.1 2.270
508 2.310
Method Reported
Value
508 2.310
508 2.350
525.1 2.390
508 2.410
505 2.420
525.1 2.460
Method Reported
Value
505 2.470
505 2.500
508 2.540
508 2.560
505 2.570
508 2.600
Method Reported
Value
525.1 2.610
other 2.720
other 3.100



Water Study: 36
True Value: 0.751 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
508 0.172
508.1 0.440
508 0.480
508 0.504
508 0.530
508 0.562
525.2 0.566
508 0.570
525.2 0.574
other 0.585
Method Reported
Value
508 0.594
508 0.622
505 0.624
508 6.320
525.1 0.640
505 0.640
508 0.640
525.2 0.650
508 0.654
508 0.659
Method Reported
Value
525.2 0.660
508 0.660
other 0.661
508 0.673
508 0.675
525.2 0.676
508 0.676
525.2 0.714
other 0.721
508 0.726
Method Reported
Value
508 0.727
508 0.730
508 0.730
525.2 0.733
505 0.736
505 0.746
505 0.750
508 0.784
508 0.785
525.2 0.791
Method Reported
Value
508 0.800
505 0.801
505 0.816
525.2 0.825
508.1 0.828
508 0.828
505 0.829
505 0.840
505 0.882
508 0.896
Method Reported
Value
505 0.936
525.2 0.947
508.1 1.070
505 1.310
525.2 2.200





Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-107
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 37
True Value: 0.563 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
508 0.010
508 0.322
508 0.350
508.1 0.355
508 0.371
508 0.380
525.2 0.393
508 0.402
Method Reported
Value
508 0.412
508 0.422
other 0.423
508 0.425
525.2 0.428
508 0.430
508.1 0.435
525.2 0.435
Method Reported
Value
508 0.450
525.2 0.457
508 0.471
508 0.472
508 0.484
505 0.487
508 0.500
525.2 0.500
Method Reported
Value
505 0.501
505 0.513
508 0.524
505 0.529
508 0.534
505 0.540
other 0.549
508 0.550
Method Reported
Value
508 0.559
505 0.565
525.2 0.570
other 0.602
505 0.605
525.2 0.612
other 0.619
508 0.620
Method Reported
Value
505 0.675
505 0.695
505 0.702
525.2 0.802
508 1.080



Water Study: 38
True Value: 1.2 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
525.2 0.581
508 0.601
508 0.707
508.1 0.770
525.2 0.796
508 0.806
other 0.850
505 0.855
525.2 0.883
Method Reported
Value
508 0.885
525.2 0.900
508 0.901
508 0.935
508 0.938
508.1 0.953
508 0.965
508 0.967
508 0.992
Method Reported
Value
508 1.000
508 1.040
508 1.040
525.2 1.050
508 1.060
505 1.080
505 1.090
508 1.090
508 1.100
Method Reported
Value
508 1.120
508 1.120
508 1.130
505 1.140
other 1.150
508 1.160
525.2 1.160
508 1.170
508 1.170
Method Reported
Value
505 1.180
505 1.200
other 1.200
525.2 1.220
508 1.230
505 1.230
508 1.270
525.2 1.280
505 1.310
Method Reported
Value
508.1 1.310
508 1.430
505 1.430
508 1.430
525.2 1.810




Water Study: 39
True Value: 0.687 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
505 0.280
508 0.422
508 0.458
525.2 0.460
508 0.467
508 0.470
other 0.484
Method Reported
Value
508 0.497
525.2 0.506
508 0.525
525.2 0.529
508 0.535
505 0.542
525.2 0.549
Method Reported
Value
508 0.551
other 0.560
508 0.560
525.2 0.560
508 0.560
525.2 0.565
505 0.583
Method Reported
Value
508 0.610
525.2 0.620
508.1 0.630
other 0.647
508 0.650
525.2 0.654
505 0.658
Method Reported
Value
505 0.670
505 0.674
508 0.681
508 0.682
505 0.697
505 0.700
525.2 0.710
Method Reported
Value
525.2 0.718
508.1 0.735
508 0.739
525.2 0.740
508 0.749
508 0.785
508 0.919
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-108
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 40
True Value: 2.33 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
508 0.980
508 1.060
508 1.070
525.2 1.140
508 1.140
508 1.290
508 1.390
508 1.550
508 1.630
Method Reported
Value
other 1.640
508 1.740
508.1 1.810
508 1.810
525.2 1.850
525.2 1.850
525.2 1.880
508 1.900
other 1.950
Method Reported
Value
508 1.950
525.2 1.960
525.2 1.980
508 1.980
505 1.990
505 2.010
508 2.030
508.1 2.040
508 2.050
Method Reported
Value
525.2 2.100
508 2.140
505 2.140
other 2.142
525.2 2.170
508 2.190
525.2 2.260
508 2.270
508 2.300
Method Reported
Value
508 2.320
525.2 2.330
508 2.340
508 2.360
508 2.360
508.1 2.380
508 2.400
505 2.400
508 2.400
Method Reported
Value
other 2.440
508 2.460
505 2.470
505 2.520
525.2 2.550
505 2.550
525.2 2.810
505 2.810
525.2 3.680
Water Study: 41
True Value: 0.83 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
508.1 0.165
525.2 0.370
505 0.458
508 0.548
525.2 0.550
508 0.560
508 0.561
508.1 0.567
Method Reported
Value
525.2 0.578
525.2 0.579
508 0.587
other 0.590
508 0.634
508 0.636
525.2 0.640
508 0.647
Method Reported
Value
525.2 0.649
525.2 0.650
508.1 0.658
508 0.659
other 0.664
525.2 0.667
525.2 0.668
525.2 0.670
Method Reported
Value
508 0.674
508 0.675
508 0.690
505 0.690
508 0.694
508.1 0.730
505 0.735
508 0.737
Method Reported
Value
505 0.742
other 0.747
508 0.760
other 0.770
505 0.777
508 0.812
505 0.827
508 0.828
Method Reported
Value
505 0.865
525.2 0.868
505 0.898
508.1 0.915
508 1.330



Heptachlor Epoxide

Water Study: 24a
True Value: 0.161 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
505 0.046
505 0.116
508 0.120
other 0.124
505 0.130
505 0.130
Method Reported
Value
505 0.133
508 0.137
other 0.140
other 0.141
505 0.142
other 0.143
Method Reported
Value
other 0.145
508 0.145
505 0.149
505 0.155
other 0.155
505 0.155
Method Reported
Value
505 0.157
505 0.158
505 0.161
505 0.163
505 0.164
505 0.166
Method Reported
Value
505 0.170
508 0.173
508 0.174
508 0.180
508 0.188
other 0.201
Method Reported
Value
508 0.207
other 0.310
505 0.514



Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-109
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 24b
True Value: 1.61 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
505 0.624
505 1.200
508 1.380
505 1.380
other 1.390
other 1.400
Method Reported
Value
505 1.401
505 1.430
508 1.440
508 1.440
508 1.450
other 1.450
Method Reported
Value
505 1.460
505 1.460
505 1.510
other 1.520
508 1.530
other 1.540
Method Reported
Value
other 1.560
505 1.560
508 1.590
505 1.600
505 1.606
505 1.620
Method Reported
Value
505 1.660
505 1.680
505 1.690
505 1.710
other 1.940
508 2.150
Method Reported
Value
508 2.350
other 3.000
505 3.050



Water Study: 25a
True Value: 0.771 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
508 0.597
505 0.646
508 0.685
508 0.699
Method Reported
Value
other 0.715
other 0.726
505 0.732
other 0.752
Method Reported
Value
508 0.757
508 0.763
508 0.774
508 0.780
Method Reported
Value
508 0.798
508.1 0.800
508 0.802
505 0.809
Method Reported
Value
other 0.817
505 0.838
other 0.850
508 0.865
Method Reported
Value
508 0.885



Water Study: 25b
True Value: 0.094 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
508 0.075
505 0.076
508 0.078
508 0.080
Method Reported
Value
508 0.080
other 0.0802
505 0.081
508 0.084
Method Reported
Value
other 0.0843
505 0.085
508 0.092
508 0.096
Method Reported
Value
508 0.098
505 0.101
508 0.104
other 0.108
Method Reported
Value
other 0.110
505 0.110
508 0.110
508 0.123
Method Reported
Value




Water Study: 26a
True Value: 0.198 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
other 0.074
other 0.148
other 0.159
508 0.171
508 0.172
525 0.179
Method Reported
Value
508 0.180
525 0.181
505 0.183
508 0.184
505 0.184
525.1 0.186
Method Reported
Value
other 0.190
505 0.195
508 0.195
505 0.195
other 0.197
505 0.199
Method Reported
Value
508 0.204
525 0.208
other 0.220
505 0.223
505 0.223
508 0.227
Method Reported
Value
505 0.228
505 0.243
505 0.254
508 0.285
505 0.356
508 0.542
Method Reported
Value
505 1.770





Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-110
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 26b
True Value: 1.81 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
508 0.402
other 1.400
525 1.420
other 1.460
508 1.530
Method Reported
Value
505 1.540
525 1.540
508 1.590
other 1.630
505 1.636
Method Reported
Value
other 1.640
508 1.640
505 1.648
508 1.700
508 1.700
Method Reported
Value
525.1 1.717
505 1.727
505 1.760
505 1.789
other 1.800
Method Reported
Value
505 1.840
525 1.850
505 1.880
505 1.940
508 1.960
Method Reported
Value
505 1.980
508 2.060
505 2.090
505 2.120
other 2.300
Water Study: 27
True Value: 0.533 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
other 0.272
525 0.275
508 0.384
508 0.393
Method Reported
Value
508 0.419
508 0.436
other 0.442
508 0.450
Method Reported
Value
505 0.452
505 0.453
508 0.459
508 0.469
Method Reported
Value
505 0.493
508 0.499
508 0.500
508 0.521
Method Reported
Value
505 0.524
508 0.540
508 0.548
508 0.568
Method Reported
Value
other 0.578
505 0.606
508 0.650
508 0.878
Water Study: 29
True Value: 0.267 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
508 0.110
508 0.133
other 0.157
505 0.194
508 0.199
Method Reported
Value
505 0.200
508 0.204
508 0.205
508 0.218
508 0.220
Method Reported
Value
508 0.226
508 0.234
508 0.236
508 0.246
other 0.249
Method Reported
Value
other 0.250
508 0.250
508 0.252
other 0.254
other 0.260
Method Reported
Value
505 0.266
508 0.286
505 0.298
508 0.310
505 0.360
Method Reported
Value





Water Study: 30
True Value: 0.85 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
505 0.463
505 0.512
508 0.548
505 0.550
508 0.636
508 0.664
508 0.671
505 0.672
Method Reported
Value
508 0.678
508 0.681
other 0.686
other 0.714
508 0.724
525 0.728
505 0.748
508 0.757
Method Reported
Value
other 0.760
505 0.770
508 0.780
505 0.781
other 0.790
508 0.796
505 0.800
other 0.800
Method Reported
Value
508 0.800
508 0.810
508 0.812
508 0.815
505 0.824
505 0.826
other 0.830
508 0.834
Method Reported
Value
508 0.842
508 0.855
508 0.858
508 0.858
508 0.862
other 0.875
other 0.876
508 0.882
Method Reported
Value
508 0.900
508 0.930
508 0.950
508 0.964
505 1.010
508 1.040
508 1.048

Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-lll
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 31
True Value: 1.92 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
505 0.810
505 0.868
508 0.869
508 0.940
508 0.974
Method Reported
Value
505 1.270
508 1.300
508 1.320
508 1.370
508 1.460
Method Reported
Value
508 1.480
508 1.570
508 1.662
508 1.670
other 1.680
Method Reported
Value
other 1.690
508 1.710
508 1.730
508 1.755
508 1.780
Method Reported
Value
508 1.790
508 1.800
508 1.910
508 2.040
508 2.130
Method Reported
Value
508 2.210
508 2.630



Water Study: 32
True Value: 0.346 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
508 0.073
508 0.206
508 0.210
505 0.272
other 0.279
508 0.285
508 0.287
508 0.292
508 0.297
508 0.297
Method Reported
Value
508 0.300
508 0.304
508 0.320
other 0.321
505 0.322
525.1 0.324
525.1 0.325
508 0.327
525.1 0.331
508 0.333
Method Reported
Value
508 0.336
508 0.336
505 0.337
508 0.340
508 0.343
508 0.345
505 0.345
other 0.347
505 0.350
508 0.351
Method Reported
Value
525.1 0.353
508 0.354
508 0.357
508 0.360
508 0.360
508 0.367
508 0.369
508 0.370
508 0.370
505 0.372
Method Reported
Value
508 0.372
505 0.376
505 0.382
505 0.383
508 0.387
505 0.390
505 0.394
505 0.400
525.1 0.420
525.1 0.440
Method Reported
Value
508 0.448
508 0.471
525.1 0.480
505 0.519
508 0.582





Water Study: 33
True Value: 0.679 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
525.1 0.170
other 0.346
508 0.380
508 0.436
508 0.513
508 0.522
Method Reported
Value
508 0.525
505 0.540
525.1 0.560
508 0.583
508 0.583
505 0.601
Method Reported
Value
508 0.602
508 0.605
525.1 0.617
508 0.625
508 0.631
508 0.639
Method Reported
Value
505 0.651
508 0.662
508 0.665
508 0.670
508 0.670
508 0.674
Method Reported
Value
505 0.681
505 0.700
525.1 0.705
525.1 0.737
505 0.738
508 0.800
Method Reported
Value
508 0.830





Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-112
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 34
True Value: 0.550 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
508 0.200
505 0.277
525.1 0.326
508 0.329
508 0.349
505 0.380
505 0.415
508 0.421
525.1 0.424
Method Reported
Value
525.1 0.425
other 0.427
508 0.438
508 0.446
508 0.447
508 0.448
other 0.450
508 0.450
505 0.458
Method Reported
Value
525.1 0.486
508 0.488
508 0.496
508 0.499
508 0.500
505 0.503
508 0.508
508 0.508
525.1 0.511
Method Reported
Value
505 0.512
508 0.514
508 0.520
505 0.525
508 0.526
525.1 0.526
508 0.528
508 0.540
505 0.543
Method Reported
Value
505 0.546
505 0.550
505 0.552
508 0.556
525.1 0.560
505 0.562
508 0.563
508 0.579
508 0.590
Method Reported
Value
508 0.604
505 0.622
508 0.625
505 0.627
525.1 0.630
525.1 1.090



Water Study: 35
True Value: 1.49 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
525.1 0.917
508 1.040
525.1 1.140
508 1.180
508 1.250
508 1.280
Method Reported
Value
508 1.300
508 1.300
508 1.320
505 1.320
505 1.330
508 1.370
Method Reported
Value
508 1.390
508 1.400
508 1.420
508 1.420
508 1.460
508 1.460
Method Reported
Value
508 1.470
505 1.530
other 1.530
508 1.550
505 1.560
508 1.594
Method Reported
Value
505 1.610
525.1 1.650
other 1.660
525.1 1.670
other 1.700
525.1 1.860
Method Reported
Value
508 1.920
525.1 1.984
508 3.030



Water Study: 37
True Value: 0.403 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
508 0.039
525.2 0.211
505 0.235
508 0.257
508 0.262
508.1 0.283
525.2 0.297
other 0.311
Method Reported
Value
525.2 0.312
508.1 0.317
525.2 0.333
505 0.334
508 0.336
508 0.340
525.2 0.340
other 0.346
Method Reported
Value
525.2 0.350
508 0.350
508 0.354
508 0.357
505 0.360
508 0.361
508 0.363
508 0.365
Method Reported
Value
505 0.369
508 0.370
525.2 0.370
525.2 0.372
508 0.375
505 0.375
508 0.375
508 0.380
Method Reported
Value
other 0.380
508 0.387
508 0.389
505 0.390
505 0.391
505 0.392
508 0.400
508 0.401
Method Reported
Value
505 0.406
508 0.450
other 0.531
505 0.536
508 0.952



Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-113
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 38
True Value: 0.742 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
508 0.400
525.2 0.520
508 0.528
525.2 0.534
525.2 0.538
505 0.542
508 0.563
508 0.584
505 0.614
Method Reported
Value
508.1 0.616
508 0.616
508 0.619
525.2 0.620
508.1 0.630
508 0.631
508 0.633
525.2 0.636
508 0.643
Method Reported
Value
508 0.660
508 0.662
508 0.662
508 0.663
505 0.665
525.2 0.670
508 0.675
508 0.675
505 0.680
Method Reported
Value
508 0.681
508 0.683
505 0.690
505 0.693
505 0.699
other 0.705
508 0.719
505 0.721
other 0.722
Method Reported
Value
525 0.735
508 0.749
505 0.750
508 0.751
525.2 0.753
525.2 0.756
508 0.758
other 0.765
508.1 0.765
Method Reported
Value
508 0.860
508 0.890
508 0.967
508 0.996
508 1.110
525.2 1.130



Water Study: 39
True Value: 0.340 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
525.2 0.148
508 0.217
508 0.236
505 0.249
505 0.250
505 0.253
508 0.259
508 0.263
Method Reported
Value
525.2 0.268
505 0.270
525.2 0.270
508 0.274
525.2 0.275
other 0.278
525.2 0.278
other 0.283
Method Reported
Value
508 0.291
505 0.300
525.2 0.300
508 0.303
508 0.303
505 0.306
508.1 0.309
505 0.316
Method Reported
Value
508 0.318
508 0.324
508.1 0.327
505 0.333
508 0.337
508 0.343
525.2 0.345
525.2 0.350
Method Reported
Value
525.2 0.350
508 0.350
508 0.352
525.2 0.355
508 0.369
525.2 0.370
525.2 0.373
508 0.384
Method Reported
Value
508 0.414
508 0.452
508 0.468





Water Study: 40
True Value: 1.48 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
508 0.770
508 0.975
525.2 1.010
508 1.090
508 1.100
508 1.100
other 1.140
508 1.140
508.1 1.160
Method Reported
Value
508 1.200
508 1.210
525.2 1.240
508 1.250
525.2 1.280
525.2 1.300
525.2 1.300
508 1.310
508 1.320
Method Reported
Value
505 1.320
508 1.320
508 1.320
525.2 1.330
other 1.340
525.2 1.340
508 1.340
508 1.360
525.2 1.360
Method Reported
Value
505 1.390
508 1.400
508 1.400
525.2 1.400
508 1.420
508 1.440
505 1.440
other 1.440
other 1.476
Method Reported
Value
508.1 1.480
508 1.500
505 1.500
508 1.500
508 1.500
525.2 1.500
508 1.500
508 1.510
505 1.510
Method Reported
Value
508 1.520
508 1.550
525.2 1.560
505 1.560
505 1.570
508.1 1.700
505 1.820
525.2 2.230
525.2 2.340
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-114
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 41
True Value: 0.630 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
508.1 0.179
525.2 0.310
508.1 0.368
525.2 0.420
505 0.455
505 0.530
508 0.530
508 0.534
Method Reported
Value
508.1 0.541
508.1 0.544
508 0.549
508 0.561
other 0.568
other 0.569
525.2 0.570
525.2 0.573
Method Reported
Value
525.2 0.580
508 0.585
525.2 0.585
other 0.589
508 0.589
525.2 0.593
525.2 0.600
508.1 0.608
Method Reported
Value
other 0.615
508 0.623
508 0.625
508 0.630
508 0.633
505 0.633
505 0.636
508 0.640
Method Reported
Value
505 0.640
505 0.655
505 0.661
508 0.665
505 0.680
508 0.684
525.2 0.710
525.2 0.712
Method Reported
Value
505 0.712
508 0.719
508 0.756





Hexachlorobenzene

Water Study: 27
True Value: 0.483 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
508 0.235
508 0.303
505 0.366
Method Reported
Value
508 0.380
508 0.383
508 0.393
Method Reported
Value
508 0.410
508 0.413
508 0.450
Method Reported
Value
505 0.479
505 0.483
508 0.503
Method Reported
Value
505 0.542
508 0.554
508 0.593
Method Reported
Value



Water Stdy: 29
True Value: 0.417 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
505 0.130
508 0.170
508 0.259
Method Reported
Value
508 0.274
other 0.298
508 0.322
Method Reported
Value
508 0.337
508 0.342
508 0.350
Method Reported
Value
508 0.358
505 0.360
508 0.390
Method Reported
Value
505 0.401
508 0.408
505 0.413
Method Reported
Value
508 0.435
505 0.493
other 0.692
Water Study: 30
True Value: 0.667 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
508 0.315
505 0.329
505 0.360
508 0.406
other 0.425
508 0.450
508 0.452
Method Reported
Value
other 0.478
505 0.490
508 0.496
505 0.505
508 0.506
508 0.517
505 0.523
Method Reported
Value
508 0.531
508 0.538
other 0.558
508 0.569
505 0.580
505 0.580
other 0.580
Method Reported
Value
508 0.585
other 0.590
508 0.606
508 0.623
508 0.630
508 0.651
505 0.659
Method Reported
Value
505 0.700
other 0.716
505 0.730
508 0.738
508 0.752
508 0.785
508 0.812
Method Reported
Value
508 0.880
508 0.966
508 1.716




Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-115
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 31
True Value: 2.40 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
508 0.820
505 0.830
505 0.921
508 1.120
Method Reported
Value
508 1.140
508 1.440
508 1.520
508 1.540
Method Reported
Value
508 1.630
508 1.650
508 1.736
other 1.770
Method Reported
Value
505 1.810
508 1.840
508 1.930
508 1.990
Method Reported
Value
508 2.029
508 2.180
508 2.200
508 2.200
Method Reported
Value
508 2.220
508 2.400
508 3.040
Water Study: 32
True Value: 0.857 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
505 0.154
508 0.155
508 0.175
508 0.437
508 0.450
other 0.538
525.1 0.538
525.1 0.570
Method Reported
Value
other 0.600
525.1 0.638
508 0.646
508 0.667
508 0.693
508 0.696
508 0.696
508 0.722
Method Reported
Value
508 0.734
508 0.749
505 0.753
508 0.754
508 0.755
508 0.760
508 0.779
505 0.809
Method Reported
Value
508 0.810
505 0.818
508 0.825
505 0.832
525.1 0.853
505 0.860
505 0.872
505 0.880
Method Reported
Value
525.1 0.880
508 0.885
505 0.935
525.1 0.938
508 0.943
505 0.962
525.1 0.969
525.1 0.990
Method Reported
Value
508 1.010
505 1.030
505 1.210
508 1.430




Water Study: 33
True Value: 1.32 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
508 0.620
other 0.799
505 0.858
508 0.892
508 0.915
508 0.929
Method Reported
Value
508 0.940
508 0.947
508 1.014
508 1.020
505 1.050
508 1.060
Method Reported
Value
508 1.060
508 1.150
525.1 1.190
505 1.220
508 1.250
505 1.290
Method Reported
Value
505 1.310
508 1.340
525.1 1.360
525.1 1.370
525.1 1.390
508 1.500
Method Reported
Value
505 1.590
525.1 1.590
508 1.600
505 1.940
508 2.850

Method Reported
Value






Water Study: 34
True Value: 3.57 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
508 2.050
525.1 2.340
505 2.400
508 2.440
508 2.660
508 2.670
525.1 2.710
508 2.740
Method Reported
Value
505 2.830
508 2.860
505 2.870
508 2.909
508 2.920
508 2.930
505 2.930
508 2.960
Method Reported
Value
508 2.960
525.1 2.970
508 2.977
508 2.980
508 3.020
508 3.070
505 3.080
505 3.080
Method Reported
Value
505 3.280
525.1 3.300
505 3.325
505 3.340
525.1 3.380
525.1 3.380
508 3.430
505 3.460
Method Reported
Value
505 3.630
508 3.670
505 3.700
525.1 3.720
505 3.860
525.1 3.890
508 4.000
508 4.310
Method Reported
Value
505 4.340
508 4.640
505 5.726
508 7.300
508 13.400
525.1 13.600


Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-116
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 35
True Value: 0.635 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
508 0.346
508 0.353
508 0.360
508 0.401
508 0.407
508 0.436
Method Reported
Value
525.1 0.442
508 0.475
508 0.480
other 0.520
508 0.529
525.1 0.555
Method Reported
Value
508 0.567
508 0.568
508 0.577
508 0.582
505 0.620
505 0.620
Method Reported
Value
505 0.631
525.1 0.640
505 0.685
508 0.696
508 0.700
525.1 0.706
Method Reported
Value
505 0.710
525.1 0.728
525.1 0.736
505 0.808
other 0.930
505 1.050
Method Reported
Value
508 1.160





Water Study: 36
True Value: 0.847 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
508 0.261
508.1 0.342
508 0.410
508 0.456
525.2 0.510
508 0.556
508 0.558
508 0.559
508 0.597
Method Reported
Value
508 0.630
508 0.671
508 0.685
525.2 0.692
505 0.700
508 0.708
525.2 0.708
525.2 0.725
508 0.737
Method Reported
Value
508 0.739
525.2 0.739
525.2 0.741
505 0.749
508 0.761
525.2 0.765
508 0.769
508 0.778
505 0.785
Method Reported
Value
other 0.790
505 0.804
525.2 0.811
508 0.824
525.2 0.830
505 0.835
505 0.840
505 0.854
508 0.857
Method Reported
Value
505 0.901
505 0.914
508 0.918
508 0.920
525.2 0.925
505 0.940
505 0.942
525.2 0.960
525.2 1.010
Method Reported
Value
525.1 1.080
508.1 1.200
508.1 1.700
508 3.520
505 4.960




Water Study: 37
True Value: 0.806 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
508.1 0.023
508 0.091
508 0.460
508.1 0.528
508 0.551
508 0.562
508 0.570
Method Reported
Value
508 0.579
525.2 0.612
508.1 0.643
508 0.650
508 0.680
508 0.686
525.2 0.710
Method Reported
Value
508 0.722
508 0.723
525.2 0.738
505 0.739
508 0.746
508 0.746
508 0.750
Method Reported
Value
508 0.756
508 0.760
505 0.779
508 0.786
525.2 0.790
505 0.791
505 0.795
Method Reported
Value
525.2 0.799
505 0.803
525.2 0.810
525.2 0.825
525.2 0.832
508 0.837
other 0.866
Method Reported
Value
505 0.877
505 0.880
505 0.896
505 0.920
525.2 0.958
505 0.964
525.2 1.000
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-117
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 38
True Value: 0.538 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
505 0.204
508 0.264
525.2 0.324
508 0.328
525.2 0.329
508 0.332
508 0.337
508 0.339
Method Reported
Value
505 0.344
508 0.350
508 0.361
525.2 0.370
508.1 0.370
508 0.370
508.1 0.396
other 0.396
Method Reported
Value
508 0.408
508 0.422
525.2 0.442
525.2 0.445
525.2 0.452
508 0.453
505 0.473
525.2 0.479
Method Reported
Value
525.2 0.480
508 0.480
508 0.489
508 0.498
508 0.504
505 0.507
505 0.512
505 0.520
Method Reported
Value
508 0.523
508 0.525
508 0.531
525.2 0.535
505 0.539
505 0.547
525.2 0.567
508 0.570
Method Reported
Value
505 0.600
508.1 0.620
525.2 0.690
508 0.913
508 1.110



Water Study: 39
True Value: 1.68 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
508 0.970
508 0.995
508 1.090
508 1.100
508.1 1.130
508 1.160
508 1.160
Method Reported
Value
505 1.230
505 1.230
508 1.240
525.2 1.270
525.2 1.370
525.2 1.390
525.2 1.425
Method Reported
Value
505 1.440
508 1.450
505 1.470
508 1.520
525.2 1.560
525.2 1.560
505 1.590
Method Reported
Value
525.2 1.610
508 1.620
525.2 1.630
525.2 1.660
505 1.660
525.2 1.700
other 1.750
Method Reported
Value
508.1 1.750
525.2 1.760
508 1.770
505 1.770
505 1.780
525.2 1.880
505 1.900
Method Reported
Value
508 2.210
525.2 2.290





Water Study: 40
True Value: 2.90 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
508 0.910
508 1.030
508 1.170
508 1.800
508 1.850
508 1.870
508 1.930
508 1.950
Method Reported
Value
525.2 2.100
508.1 2.130
508 2.140
508 2.200
525.2 2.290
508 2.330
505 2.370
508 2.380
Method Reported
Value
525.2 2.400
508 2.460
508.1 2.460
525.2 2.460
508 2.490
525.2 2.600
525.2 2.620
525.2 2.630
Method Reported
Value
525.2 2.670
525.2 2.670
525.2 2.680
525.2 2.710
508 2.780
505 2.800
525.2 2.800
508.1 2.880
Method Reported
Value
508 2.880
525.2 2.940
525.2 2.940
508 2.970
508 2.990
505 3.060
505 3.080
other 3.080
Method Reported
Value
505 3.100
508 3.150
505 3.160
508 3.200
505 3.390
505 3.510
525.2 3.670
505 4.100
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-118
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 41
True Value: 1.03 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
508 0.420
508 0.530
508.1 0.570
525.2 0.605
505 0.617
508 0.636
508 0.646
Method Reported
Value
508 0.653
525.2 0.664
508.1 0.709
525.2 0.721
508.1 0.730
525.2 0.740
508 0.750
Method Reported
Value
508 0.762
508 0.779
525.2 0.800
508 0.830
508 0.830
525.2 0.840
other 0.848
Method Reported
Value
505 0.882
508 0.883
505 0.885
505 0.900
508 0.918
525.2 0.920
508 0.920
Method Reported
Value
505 0.925
505 0.970
505 0.984
508 0.985
other 0.992
525.2 1.030
505 1.070
Method Reported
Value
525.2 1.100
other 1.200
525.2 1.250




Hexachlorocyclopentadiene

Water Study: 24a
True Value: 4.42 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
other 1.550
505 1.950
505 2.720
other 2.730
Method Reported
Value
505 3.010
505 3.120
other 3.140
525 3.160
Method Reported
Value
other 3.390
505 3.440
505 3.780
505 3.870
Method Reported
Value
505 3.890
505 4.020
505 4.030
other 4.310
Method Reported
Value
505 4.780
505 5.050
505 5.075
505 5.680
Method Reported
Value
505 14.000



Water Study: 24b
True Value: 0.736 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
other 0.159
505 0.450
505 0.472
505 0.493
Method Reported
Value
505 0.503
505 0.521
other 0.529
505 0.532
Method Reported
Value
525 0.547
other 0.550
other 0.550
505 0.609
Method Reported
Value
505 0.696
505 0.700
505 0.706
505 0.731
Method Reported
Value
505 0.750
505 0.762
505 0.807
other 0.871
Method Reported
Value
505 2.500



Water Study: 25a
True Value: 1.87 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
508 0.610
508 0.836
Method Reported
Value
508.1 1.040
508 1.060
Method Reported
Value
505 1.125
508 1.380
Method Reported
Value
other 1.690
other 1.718
Method Reported
Value
505 1.870
505 2.080
Method Reported
Value
508.1 2.400
508 3.300
Water Study: 25b
True Value: 0.267 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
508 0.074
508 0.091
Method Reported
Value
508.1 0.093
505 0.133
Method Reported
Value
508 0.156
other 0.506
Method Reported
Value
508 0.218
other 0.220
Method Reported
Value
505 0.226
505 0.268
Method Reported
Value
508 0.494
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-119
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 26a
True Value: 2.47 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
other 0.912
505 0.931
505 1.200
525 1.200
Method Reported
Value
other 1.450
525 1.540
other 1.770
505 1.820
Method Reported
Value
other 1.900
505 1.960
505 2.058
505 2.240
Method Reported
Value
508.1 2.290
505 2.568
505 2.600
505 2.730
Method Reported
Value
other 2.770
505 3.290
505 3.370
505 3.700
Method Reported
Value
505 5.670



Water Study: 26b
True Value: 0.367 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
525 0.143
505 0.167
other 0.201
505 0.201
Method Reported
Value
other 0.219
505 0.251
508.1 0.256
other 0.267
Method Reported
Value
505 0.290
505 0.292
525 0.298
505 0.301
Method Reported
Value
505 0.309
505 0.322
505 0.334
other 0.347
Method Reported
Value
other 0.515
505 0.529
505 0.591
505 0.605
Method Reported
Value
505 1.350



Water Study: 27
True Value: 0.774 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
other 0.423
other 0.440
508 0.482
Method Reported
Value
508 0.511
508 0.550
other 0.568
Method Reported
Value
505 0.629
505 0.631
505 0.660
Method Reported
Value
525 0.664
505 0.676
505 0.680
Method Reported
Value
508 0.706
505 0.788
505 0.908
Method Reported
Value



Water Study: 29
True Value: 0.313 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
508.1 0.132
508 0.142
505 0.150
Method Reported
Value
508 0.169
other 0.182
508 0.185
Method Reported
Value
other 0.211
508 0.230
other 0.250
Method Reported
Value
505 0.285
505 0.297
505 0.330
Method Reported
Value
other 0.437
508 0.443
Method Reported
Value

Water Study: 30
True Value: 1.72 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
other 0.266
505 0.268
other 0.360
508 0.380
other 0.400
508 0.638
Method Reported
Value
other 0.650
508 0.666
505 0.766
other 0.856
other 0.866
505 0.880
Method Reported
Value
505 0.900
505 0.975
other 1.030
other 1.100
505 1.120
other 1.191
Method Reported
Value
505 1.230
505 1.260
other 1.280
505 1.360
other 1.370
505 1.440
Method Reported
Value
other 1.460
505 1.540
508 1.569
505 1.700
508 1.790
other 1.840
Method Reported
Value
other 1.840
508 1.940
other 1.970
508 2.270
505 2.430

Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-120
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 31
True Value: 1.11 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
505 0.237
508 0.310
other 0.362
Method Reported
Value
other 0.462
other 0.496
508 0.696
Method Reported
Value
other 0.701
505 0.702
other 0.710
Method Reported
Value
508 0.736
505 0.740
505 0.749
Method Reported
Value
508 0.842
505 0.970
505 1.000
Method Reported
Value
other 1.840


Water Study: 32
True Value: 0.823 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
other 0.066
other 0.177
505 0.282
525.1 0.297
525.1 0.328
508 0.336
other 0.403
Method Reported
Value
525.1 0.420
508 0.433
other 0.489
525.1 0.503
525.1 0.510
other 0.522
other 0.559
Method Reported
Value
505 0.592
505 0.597
other 0.600
505 0.604
508 0.636
505 0.648
505 0.672
Method Reported
Value
525.1 0.676
505 0.700
505 0.704
505 0.710
525.1 0.745
other 0.761
other 0.772
Method Reported
Value
505 0.783
505 0.830
508 0.831
505 0.842
505 0.851
505 0.879
505 0.885
Method Reported
Value
508 1.000
505 1.120
other 1.240
other 1.800
525.1 1.970
505 2.780

Water Study: 33
True Value: 2.92 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
505 0.528
other 0.860
508 1.000
other 1.020
other 1.170
Method Reported
Value
525.1 1.290
505 1.320
505 1.500
505 1.540
505 1.570
Method Reported
Value
505 1.580
505 1.590
508 1.670
other 1.680
525.1 1.690
Method Reported
Value
505 1.740
508 1.970
525.1 2.230
505 2.280
505 2.420
Method Reported
Value
505 2.610
525.1 2.870
505 2.990
525.1 3.040
other 3.160
Method Reported
Value
other 7.700




Water Study: 34
True Value: 2. 14 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
505 0.377
508 0.555
525.1 0.626
other 0.750
other 0.823
525.1 0.826
505 0.961
505 0.970
Method Reported
Value
525.1 1.010
525.1 1.090
508 1.170
other 1.240
other 1.270
525.1 1.280
505 1.330
505 1.350
Method Reported
Value
other 1.350
525.1 1.380
505 1.390
505 1.410
505 1.420
505 1.440
505 1.450
other 1.602
Method Reported
Value
505 1.650
other 1.740
505 1.750
525.1 1.760
other 1.780
505 1.900
505 1.980
505 1.990
Method Reported
Value
505 2.040
505 2.090
other 2.150
505 2.240
505 2.247
525.1 2.580
505 2.610
505 2.780
Method Reported
Value
505 2.850
505 4.310
other 18.300





Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-121
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 35
True Value: 1.84 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
508 0.380
525.1 0.387
505 0.583
508 0.606
525.1 0.728
Method Reported
Value
505 0.820
other 0.855
505 0.902
505 0.930
525.1 0.930
Method Reported
Value
505 0.932
525.1 0.968
other 1.060
525.1 1.140
505 1.210
Method Reported
Value
other 1.330
505 1.520
505 1.540
508 1.540
other 1.750
Method Reported
Value
other 1.790
505 1.810
505 2.000
505 2.090
525.1 2.180
Method Reported
Value
505 2.460
other 3.200



Water Study: 36
True Value: 4.71 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
508 0.028
508 0.726
other 0.802
508 1.180
525.2 1.240
508 1.500
508 1.880
508 1.885
Method Reported
Value
508.1 1.920
525.2 1.940
525.2 1.960
508 2.340
508 2.400
525.2 2.460
508 2.490
other 2.510
Method Reported
Value
505 2.650
525.2 2.770
508 3.050
525.2 3.070
508 3.220
505 3.260
508 3.280
505 3.330
Method Reported
Value
525.2 3.520
508 3.590
525.2 3.640
525.2 3.890
505 3.900
505 3.900
525.2 3.930
508.1 3.940
Method Reported
Value
505 4.020
525.2 4.090
505 4.210
508 4.310
505 4.320
505 4.530
505 4.590
508 4.600
Method Reported
Value
505 4.600
525.1 4.640
505 4.960
505 5.010
508 6.280
525.2 7.910
505 8.110

Water Study: 37
True Value: 2.49 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
505 0.004
508 0.116
508.1 0.152
508.1 0.205
505 0.230
508 0.235
508 0.238
Method Reported
Value
525.2 0.265
508 0.320
other 0.335
525.2 0.374
505 0.443
508 0.470
508.1 0.590
Method Reported
Value
525.2 0.609
508 0.705
508 0.705
525.2 0.750
525.2 0.806
508 0.860
508 0.900
Method Reported
Value
525.2 0.935
525.2 0.962
525.2 1.060
508 1.090
505 1.120
505 1.130
508 1.340
Method Reported
Value
505 1.600
508 1.610
525.2 1.680
505 1.910
505 2.060
505 2.100
508 2.120
Method Reported
Value
508 2.160
505 2.230
505 3.050




Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-122
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 38
True Value: 1.47 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
508 0.037
508 0.421
508.1 0.505
508 0.555
525.2 0.676
508 0.686
508 0.697
525.2 0.721
Method Reported
Value
525.2 0.725
508 0.735
other 0.750
508.1 0.760
508 0.780
508 0.795
525.2 0.821
525.2 0.828
Method Reported
Value
525.2 0.829
525.2 0.870
508 0.913
505 0.940
508 0.999
508 1.010
505 1.020
505 1.060
Method Reported
Value
525.2 1.070
508.1 1.090
505 1.090
508 1.130
525.2 1.140
505 1.150
525.2 1.180
525.2 1.190
Method Reported
Value
505 1.260
508 1.280
505 1.280
505 1.290
505 1.330
508 1.390
505 1.430
525.2 1.440
Method Reported
Value
505 1.520
525.2 2.000
508 2.030
508 4.920




Water Study: 39
True Value: 3.26 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
508 0.145
508 0.145
525.2 0.460
525.2 0.710
508 0.794
508 1.090
Method Reported
Value
508 1.360
508.1 1.540
525.2 1.700
505 1.720
508 1.750
525.2 1.780
Method Reported
Value
525.2 1.830
508.1 1.910
505 1.950
525.2 1.960
505 2.030
525.2 2.110
Method Reported
Value
525.2 2.170
525.2 2.230
525.2 2.260
525.2 2.260
508 2.410
525.2 2.474
Method Reported
Value
505 2.550
525.2 2.670
505 2.750
505 3.060
508 3.150
505 3.160
Method Reported
Value
505 3.440
505 3.720
525.2 3.920
505 4.670
508 6.050

Water Study: 40
True Value: 1.22 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
508 0.163
508 0.300
505 0.462
508 0.469
508 0.488
508 0.510
525.2 0.540
508 0.543
Method Reported
Value
525.2 0.610
508 0.615
508 0.667
508 0.695
525.2 0.748
525.2 0.750
525.2 0.770
508 0.826
Method Reported
Value
525.2 0.830
525.2 0.843
508.1 0.856
508.1 0.865
525.2 0.875
525.2 0.912
505 0.932
508 0.940
Method Reported
Value
508 0.956
525.2 0.965
525.2 0.982
508 0.983
505 1.020
525.2 1.030
508 1.080
525.2 1.080
Method Reported
Value
508 1.080
525.2 1.120
508 1.130
505 1.170
505 1.180
other 1.180
508.1 1.180
525.2 1.290
Method Reported
Value
525.2 1.320
505 1.380
525.2 1.420
508 1.460
505 1.590
505 1.660
505 1.700

Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-123
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 41
True Value: 1.93 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
525.2 0.190
508 0.677
508.1 0.786
508 0.828
508 0.857
508.1 0.919
Method Reported
Value
525.2 0.933
525.2 0.950
508 0.951
508 1.020
525.2 1.040
525.2 1.070
Method Reported
Value
508 1.110
508.1 1.130
525.2 1.150
525.2 1.260
508 1.290
505 1.300
Method Reported
Value
525.2 1.360
525.2 1.490
508 1.510
505 1.560
505 1.610
508 1.620
Method Reported
Value
505 1.670
other 1.680
508 1.730
505 1.730
505 1.770
525.2 1.990
Method Reported
Value
other 2.110
505 2.120
other 2.140
505 2.240
505 2.560

Mercury
Water Study: 24a
True Value: 5.76 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
245.1 3.800
245.1 4.200
245.1 4.500
245.1 4.780
245.2 4.970
245.1 5.070
245.1 5.110
245.1 5.120
245.1 5.120
245.1 5.200
Method Reported
Value
245.1 5.230
245.2 5.260
245.1 5.280
245.1 5.350
245.2 5.400
245.1 5.400
245.2 5.410
245.1 5.430
245.1 5.500
245.1 5.500
Method Reported
Value
245.1 5.510
245.1 5.560
other 5.580
245.1 5.600
245.1 5.600
245.1 5.620
245.1 5.650
245.1 5.690
245.1 5.700
245.1 5.700
Method Reported
Value
245.1 5.700
245.1 5.710
245.1 5.740
245.1 5.780
245.1 5.790
245.1 5.800
245.2 5.900
245.1 5.900
245.1 5.900
245.1 5.900
Method Reported
Value
245.1 5.910
other 5.960
245.1 5.980
245.1 6.000
245.1 6.000
245.1 6.030
245.1 6.100
other 6.100
245.1 6.130
245.1 6.190
Method Reported
Value
245.1 6.210
245.1 6.340
245.1 6.400
other 6.460
245.1 6.480
other 6.800
245.1 7.050
245.1 7.100
other 8.510

Water Study: 24b
True Value: 2.16ug/L
Method Reported
Value
245.1 1.400
245.1 1.500
245.1 1.520
245.1 1.540
245.1 1.580
245.1 1.600
other 1.700
245.1 1.700
245.1 1.740
245.1 1.750
Method Reported
Value
245.1 1.780
245.1 1.850
245.1 1.890
245.2 1.900
245.1 1.900
245.1 1.920
245.1 1.960
245.1 1.960
245.1 2.000
245.1 2.000
Method Reported
Value
245.1 2.000
245.1 2.000
245.2 2.000
245.1 2.000
245.1 2.000
245.2 2.005
245.1 2.010
245.2 2.020
245.1 2.040
245.1 2.040
Method Reported
Value
245.1 2.040
245.1 2.050
245.1 2.090
other 2.100
245.1 2.100
245.1 2.110
other 2.130
other 2.160
245.1 2.170
245.1 2.190
Method Reported
Value
245.1 2.190
245.2 2.200
245.1 2.230
245.1 2.270
245.1 2.280
245.1 2.300
245.1 2.300
245.1 2.340
245.1 2.350
245.1 2.360
Method Reported
Value
245.1 2.400
245.1 2.400
245.1 2.410
245.1 2.500
other 2.610
245.1 2.700
245.1 2.800
245.1 2.950
other 3.430

Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-124
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 25a
True Value: 0.72 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
other 0.320
245.1 0.360
245.1 0.400
301 A- VI 0.400
245.1 0.470
245.1 0.480
245.1 0.500
Method Reported
Value
245.1 0.545
245.1 0.580
245.2 0.580
245.1 0.597
245.1 0.600
other 0.600
245.1 0.600
Method Reported
Value
245.1 0.646
245.1 0.670
245.1 0.670
245.1 0.670
245.1 0.690
245.1 0.690
245.1 0.700
Method Reported
Value
245.1 0.710
245.1 0.716
245.1 0.728
245.1 0.730
245.1 0.750
245.1 0.785
other 0.790
Method Reported
Value
245.1 0.800
245.1 0.800
245.1 0.800
245.1 0.900
245.2 0.900
other 0.940
245.1 0.950
Method Reported
Value
245.1 1.000
245.1 1.300





Water Study: 25b
True Value: 4.32 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
245.1 2.540
245.1 2.700
245.1 3.300
245.1 3.530
245.1 3.630
other 3.700
245.1 3.700
Method Reported
Value
245.1 3.770
245.1 3.970
245.1 3.990
245.1 4.050
245.1 4.060
245.1 4.100
245.1 4.120
Method Reported
Value
other 4.130
245.1 4.180
245.1 4.270
301A-VI 4.280
245.2 4.300
other 4.300
245.1 4.420
Method Reported
Value
245.1 4.420
245.1 4.430
245.1 4.450
245.1 4.540
245.1 4.550
245.1 4.600
245.1 4.600
Method Reported
Value
245.1 4.610
245.1 4.720
245.2 4.720
245.1 4.750
245.1 5.035
245.1 5.100
other 5.130
Method Reported
Value
245.1 5.200
245.1 5.750





Water Study: 26a
True Value: 4.56 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
245.2 2.200
245.1 3.280
245.1 3.425
245.1 3.500
245.1 3.510
245.1 3.770
245.1 3.800
245.1 3.800
245.1 3.950
245.1 4.000
245.1 4.010
Method Reported
Value
245.1 4.060
245.1 4.080
245.1 4.100
245.1 4.200
245.1 4.200
245.1 4.200
245.2 4.240
245.1 4.240
245.1 4.280
245.1 4.300
other 4.300
Method Reported
Value
245.1 4.300
245.1 4.330
245.1 4.350
245.1 4.400
245.1 4.400
245.1 4.400
245.1 4.400
245.1 4.420
245.1 4.490
245.1 4.500
other 4.500
Method Reported
Value
245.2 4.510
245.1 4.520
245.1 4.600
245.1 4.600
245.1 4.600
245.1 4.600
245.1 4.630
245.1 4.690
245.2 4.700
245.1 4.700
245.1 4.710
Method Reported
Value
245.2 4.720
245.1 4.800
245.1 4.840
245.1 4.870
245.1 4.900
245.1 4.930
245.1 4.940
245.1 4.960
245.1 4.990
245.1 5.000
245.1 5.100
Method Reported
Value
245.1 5.100
245.1 5.170
245.1 5.170
245.1 5.350
245.1 5.600
245.1 7.100





Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-125
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 26b
True Value: 2.47 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
245.2 1.000
245.1 1.500
245.1 1.565
245.1 1.800
245.1 1.900
245.1 2.000
245.1 2.000
245.1 2.000
245.1 2.010
245.1 2.070
245.1 2.070
Method Reported
Value
245.1 2.100
245.1 2.130
245.1 2.170
245.1 2.170
245.1 2.200
245.2 2.200
245.1 2.200
245.1 2.200
245.1 2.200
245.1 2.240
245.1 2.250
Method Reported
Value
245.1 2.290
245.1 2.300
245.1 2.300
245.1 2.340
245.1 2.340
245.1 2.340
245.2 2.350
245.1 2.400
other 2.400
245.1 2.400
245.1 2.420
Method Reported
Value
245.2 2.440
245.1 2.480
245.2 2.480
245.2 2.480
245.1 2.480
245.1 2.500
245.1 2.510
245.1 2.510
245.1 2.550
245.1 2.550
245.1 2.550
Method Reported
Value
other 2.580
245.1 2.600
245.1 2.600
245.1 2.600
245.1 2.600
245.1 2.600
245.1 2.600
245.1 2.630
245.1 2.640
245.1 2.700
245.1 2.700
Method Reported
Value
245.1 2.740
245.1 2.800
245.1 2.800
245.1 2.950
245.1 3.050
245.1 3.270





Water Study: 27
True Value: 1.29 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
245.1 0.970
245.2 1.000
245.1 1.000
245.1 1.090
245.1 1.110
245.1 1.130
Method Reported
Value
245.1 1.200
245.1 1.200
245.2 1.230
245.1 1.250
245.1 1.260
245.1 1.260
Method Reported
Value
245.1 1.260
245.1 1.290
245.1 1.310
245.1 1.310
245.1 1.310
245.2 1.320
Method Reported
Value
245.1 1.330
245.1 1.350
other 1.370
245.1 1.370
245.1 1.400
245.1 1.400
Method Reported
Value
245.2 1.460
245.1 1.490
245.1 1.500
301A-VI 1.530
245.1 1.560
245.1 1.580
Method Reported
Value
245.1 1.600
245.1 1.660
245.1 2.250



Water Study: 29
True Value: 0.506 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
245.1 0.300
245.1 0.352
245.1 0.380
245.1 0.395
245.1 0.397
other 0.400
Method Reported
Value
245.2 0.420
245.1 0.422
245.2 0.440
other 0.450
245.1 0.450
245.2 0.467
Method Reported
Value
245.1 0.478
245.1 0.481
245.1 0.485
245.1 0.486
245.2 0.488
245.2 0.500
Method Reported
Value
245.2 0.500
245.1 0.500
245.1 0.500
245.1 0.518
245.1 0.530
245.1 0.540
Method Reported
Value
245.1 0.544
245.1 0.550
245.1 0.550
245.1 0.629
245.1 0.640
245.1 0.700
Method Reported
Value
245.1 0.721





Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-126
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 30
True Value: 3.46 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
other 2.720
245.1 2.800
245.1 2.820
245.1 2.820
245.2 2.880
245.1 2.920
245.1 3.030
245.2 3.070
245.1 3.080
245.1 3.100
245.1 3.100
Method Reported
Value
303F 3.120
245.1 3.126
245.1 3.130
245.1 3.130
245.1 3.160
245.1 3.180
245.1 3.180
245.2 3.200
245.1 3.200
245.1 3.220
245.1 3.250
Method Reported
Value
245.1 3.260
245.1 3.290
245.1 3.300
245.1 3.320
245.1 3.350
245.1 3.350
245.1 3.370
245.1 3.385
245.2 3.400
245.1 3.400
245.1 3.410
Method Reported
Value
245.1 3.436
245.1 3.450
245.1 3.490
245.1 3.500
245.1 3.500
245.1 3.500
245.2 3.500
245.1 3.500
245.1 3.530
245.1 3.540
245.1 3.550
Method Reported
Value
245.1 3.570
245.1 3.570
245.1 3.600
245.1 3.600
245.1 3.610
245.1 3.619
245.2 3.640
245.1 3.700
245.1 3.700
245.1 3.700
245.1 3.700
Method Reported
Value
245.1 3.760
245.2 3.784
245.2 3.790
245.1 3.797
245.2 3.800
other 3.920
245.2 4.100




Water Study: 31
True Value: 0.908 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
245.1 0.471
245.1 0.700
other 0.780
245.1 0.800
245.1 0.800
245.1 0.860
Method Reported
Value
245.1 0.872
245.1 0.874
245.1 0.877
245.2 0.880
245.2 0.880
245.1 0.890
Method Reported
Value
245.1 0.890
245.1 0.895
245.2 0.900
245.2 0.906
245.1 0.930
245.1 0.940
Method Reported
Value
245.1 0.940
245.1 0.946
245.1 0.950
245.1 0.950
245.1 0.950
245.1 0.953
Method Reported
Value
245.1 0.969
245.1 1.000
245.1 1.020
245.1 1.080
245.2 1.190
245.1 1.200
Method Reported
Value
245.1 1.200





Water Study: 32
True Value: 6.23 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
245.1 0.574
245.1 4.300
245.1 4.940
245.2 5.100
245.1 5.380
245.1 5.400
245.1 5.490
245.2 5.500
245.1 5.600
245.1 5.620
245.1 5.730
Method Reported
Value
245.2 5.800
245.2 5.800
245.1 5.880
245.1 5.890
3112B 5.900
245.2 6.000
3112B 6.050
245.1 6.056
245.1 6.060
245.1 6.090
245.1 6.100
Method Reported
Value
245.2 6.100
245.1 6.110
245.1 6.120
245.1 6.120
245.2 6.140
other 6.150
245.1 6.160
245.1 6.200
245.1 6.200
245.1 6.200
245.1 6.210
Method Reported
Value
245.1 6.270
245.2 6.280
245.1 6.300
245.1 6.300
245.1 6.300
245.2 6.400
245.1 6.410
245.1 6.460
245.1 6.480
245.1 6.480
245.1 6.500
Method Reported
Value
245.1 6.500
245.1 6.530
245.2 6.540
245.1 6.540
245.1 6.540
245.1 6.570
245.1 6.580
245.2 6.600
245.1 6.610
245.1 6.660
245.1 6.710
Method Reported
Value
245.1 6.800
245.2 6.920
245.1 6.969
245.1 7.000
245.1 7.050
245.2 7.100
245.1 7.140
245.1 7.500
245.1 7.800


Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-127
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 33
True Value: 1.77 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
245.1 1.560
245.1 1.608
245.2 1.620
245.1 1.630
245.1 1.640
245.2 1.660
Method Reported
Value
245.1 1.670
245.1 1.680
245.2 1.700
245.1 1.730
245.1 1.740
245.1 1.750
Method Reported
Value
245.1 1.780
245.1 1.800
245.1 1.800
245.1 1.800
245.1 1.810
245.1 1.830
Method Reported
Value
245.1 1.830
245.1 1.857
245.2 1.860
245.1 1.870
other 1.880
245.1 1.900
Method Reported
Value
245.1 1.930
3112B 1.950
other 1.970
245.1 2.000
3112B 2.010
245.2 2.030
Method Reported
Value
245.1 2.070
245.1 2.240
245.1 3.350
245.2 1958.000


Water Study: 34
True Value: 5.09 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
245.1 3.850
245.1 4.160
245.1 4.180
3112B 4.400
245.1 4.490
245.2 4.580
245.1 4.600
245.1 4.620
245.1 4.697
245.1 4.700
245.1 4.700
Method Reported
Value
245.1 4.740
245.2 4.790
245.1 4.800
245.1 4.800
245.2 4.810
245.1 4.840
245.1 4.850
245.2 4.850
245.2 4.860
245.1 4.870
245.1 4.900
Method Reported
Value
245.1 4.900
245.1 4.900
245.2 4.900
245.1 4.910
245.2 4.930
245.1 4.950
245.2 4.980
245.1 5.000
245.1 5.000
245.1 5.020
245.1 5.030
Method Reported
Value
245.1 5.060
245.2 5.070
245.1 5.070
245.2 5.100
245.1 5.130
245.1 5.150
245.1 5.180
245.1 5.200
245.1 5.220
245.1 5.230
245.1 5.270
Method Reported
Value
245.1 5.310
3112B 5.350
245.1 5.370
245.1 5.400
245.1 5.410
245.1 5.417
245.2 5.460
245.1 5.600
245.1 5.640
245.1 5.650
245.1 5.700
Method Reported
Value
245.1 5.800
245.1 5.810
245.2 5.970
245.1 5.980
245.1 6.230
245.1 6.400





Water Study: 35
True Value: 0.897 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
other 0.500
245.1 0.700
245.2 0.750
245.1 0.766
245.1 0.781
245.1 0.800
245.1 0.800
Method Reported
Value
245.1 0.800
245.1 0.820
245.2 0.840
245.1 0.845
245.1 0.850
245.1 0.860
245.1 0.860
Method Reported
Value
245.1 0.860
3112B 0.863
245.2 0.865
245.1 0.897
245.2 0.900
245.1 0.900
3112B 0.900
Method Reported
Value
245.2 0.930
245.1 0.940
245.1 0.956
245.1 0.960
245.1 0.963
245.1 0.975
245.1 0.979
Method Reported
Value
245.1 0.986
245.1 1.000
245.1 1.010
245.1 1.030
245.1 1.040
245.1 1.040
245.1 1.060
Method Reported
Value
245.1 1.100
245.1 1.440





Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-128
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 36
True Value: 3.00 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
245.1 1.924
245.1 2.300
245.1 2.400
245.2 2.440
245.1 2.500
245.1 2.560
245.2 2.580
3112B 2.590
245.2 2.600
245.2 2.620
245.1 2.640
Method Reported
Value
3112B 2.640
245.2 2.700
200.8 2.740
245.1 2.770
other 2.790
245.1 2.800
245.1 2.800
245.1 2.800
245.1 2.800
245.1 2.800
245.1 2.820
Method Reported
Value
245.2 2.820
245.2 2.820
245.1 2.840
245.2 2.840
3112B 2.840
245.1 2.850
245.1 2.850
245.2 2.860
3112B 2.880
245.1 2.900
other 2.900
Method Reported
Value
245.2 2.910
245.1 2.920
245.2 2.950
245.1 2.960
3112B 3.000
245.1 3.000
245.2 3.000
245.1 3.000
245.1 3.020
245.2 3.030
3112B 3.060
Method Reported
Value
245.1 3.070
245.1 3.100
245.1 3.120
245.1 3.120
245.1 3.150
245.1 3.150
245.2 3.180
245.1 3.200
245.2 3.200
245.2 3.220
245.2 3.240
Method Reported
Value
other 3.300
245.1 3.420
other 3.490
245.2 3.900
245.1 3.940
3112B 4.240





Water Study: 37
True Value: 8. 16 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
245.2 5.300
245.1 5.600
245.1 6.360
3112B 6.490
245.2 7.100
245.2 7.270
245.2 7.300
245.1 7.300
Method Reported
Value
3112B 7.340
245.1 7.440
245.1 7.500
245.1 7.570
245.1 7.590
245.2 7.640
245.1 7.650
245.2 7.660
Method Reported
Value
245.1 7.700
245.1 7.720
245.1 7.730
245.1 7.730
245.2 7.760
245.1 7.800
245.1 7.820
3112B 7.900
Method Reported
Value
245.2 7.900
245.1 7.920
245.1 7.950
245.1 7.980
245.2 8.000
245.1 8.040
3112B 8.080
245.1 8.100
Method Reported
Value
245.1 8.140
245.1 8.150
3112B 8.170
245.2 8.180
245.1 8.200
245.2 8.600
245.1 8.600
245.2 8.620
Method Reported
Value
245.2 8.660
245.1 8.660
245.1 8.680
245.1 8.743
245.2 8.820
245.1 13.400
245.1 80.400

Water Study: 38
True Value: 6.39 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
245.1 3.280
200.8 4.200
245.2 4.260
other 5.020
245.1 5.040
245.1 5.150
245.1 5.200
245.1 5.250
245.1 5.309
245.2 5.400
Method Reported
Value
245.1 5.430
245.2 5.510
245.2 5.530
245.1 5.540
245.2 5.550
245.1 5.570
200.8 5.630
245.1 5.640
245.2 5.680
245.1 5.690
Method Reported
Value
245.1 5.750
245.2 5.750
3112B 5.760
245.2 5.760
245.1 5.780
245.1 5.800
3112B 5.800
245.1 5.860
245.2 5.870
245.2 5.900
Method Reported
Value
245.1 5.900
245.2 5.920
245.2 5.930
245.1 5.980
245.2 5.990
245.1 6.000
245.1 6.000
245.1 6.020
245.2 6.020
245.1 6.030
Method Reported
Value
other 6.040
245.1 6.100
245.1 6.150
245.1 6.210
245.2 6.240
245.2 6.330
3112B 6.340
245.1 6.340
245.2 6.400
245.1 6.420
Method Reported
Value
245.2 6.470
245.1 6.500
245.1 6.500
3112B 6.530
245.2 6.530
245.1 6.600
245.2 6.800
245.1 6.980
245.2 7.520
other 8.020
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-129
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 39
True Value: 3.80 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
245.1 1.400
245.1 1.690
245.2 1.820
245.2 1.890
245.1 2.140
245.1 2.280
245.1 2.570
245.2 2.620
Method Reported
Value
245.1 2.960
245.2 2.980
245.1 3.000
245.1 3.000
245.1 3.000
3112B 3.080
245.1 3.170
3112B 3.180
Method Reported
Value
3112B 3.200
3112B 3.230
245.2 3.300
245.1 3.350
245.2 3.390
245.1 3.390
245.2 3.390
245.2 3.400
Method Reported
Value
245.1 3.400
245.2 3.430
245.1 3.450
245.1 3.460
245.2 3.470
245.1 3.480
245.2 3.500
245.1 3.500
Method Reported
Value
3112B 3.520
245.2 3.600
245.2 3.620
245.2 3.630
245.1 3.650
245.1 3.700
245.1 3.790
245.1 3.810
Method Reported
Value
245.1 3.840
200.8 3.840
245.1 3.890
245.2 3.900
245.1 3.940
245.1 4.010
245.2 4.030

Water Study: 40
True Value: 1.50 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
245.2 0.833
245.1 0.900
245.2 1.100
245.1 1.100
245.2 1.120
200.8 1.140
other 1.160
245.2 1.180
200.8 1.210
245.1 1.240
Method Reported
Value
3112B 1.250
245.2 1.250
245.2 1.260
245.2 1.260
245.2 1.290
245.2 1.290
245.1 1.300
245.2 1.310
245.2 1.320
245.1 1.320
Method Reported
Value
other 1.330
245.2 1.340
245.1 1.340
245.1 1.340
245.2 1.350
245.1 1.350
245.2 1.360
3112B 1.360
245.2 1.360
other 1.370
Method Reported
Value
245.1 1.380
245.2 1.390
245.1 1.390
245.1 1.400
245.1 1.400
245.1 1.400
3112B 1.400
245.1 1.400
245.1 1.410
245.1 1.420
Method Reported
Value
245.1 1.420
245.2 1.440
3112B 1.440
245.2 1.450
245.1 1.460
245.1 1.460
245.2 1.470
245.1 1.470
3112B 1.480
245.1 1.490
Method Reported
Value
245.1 1.490
245.1 1.510
245.1 1.580
other 1.600
245.2 1.700
245.1 1.700
245.2 1.790
245.1 1.900
245.2 2.070
245.1 14.500
Water Study: 41
True Value: 5.82 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
245.1 4.450
3112B 4.510
245.2 4.870
245.1 4.900
245.1 4.950
245.1 5.010
245.1 5.030
3112B 5.140
Method Reported
Value
245.2 5.160
245.1 5.200
245.2 5.300
245.1 5.320
200.8 5.350
245.1 5.350
245.2 5.360
245.2 5.400
Method Reported
Value
245.2 5.400
245.2 5.420
245.2 5.500
245.1 5.530
3112B 5.550
245.1 5.610
245.2 5.620
245.2 5.620
Method Reported
Value
245.1 5.690
245.2 5.700
245.1 5.700
245.2 5.740
245.1 5.780
245.1 5.780
245.2 5.800
245.1 5.800
Method Reported
Value
245.2 5.820
245.2 5.860
3112B 5.910
245.2 5.950
245.2 6.100
245.2 6.120
200.8 6.120
245.1 6.150
Method Reported
Value
245.1 6.180
245.1 6.240
245.1 6.460
245.1 6.570




Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-130
Final - March 2003

-------
Methoxychlor
Water Study: 24a
True Value: 73.2 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
525.1 4.190
p. 1 4.780
other 30.000
509A 40.200
p. 1 40.900
525.1 41.500
D3086-79 42.000
p. 1 44.800
p. 1 47.000
509A 47.110
p. 1 52.600
Method Reported
Value
509A 52.700
p. 1 53.800
509A 54.200
other 55.000
p. 1 56.100
p. 1 56.450
525.1 56.850
p. 1 57.300
509A 58.500
p. 1 58.500
other 58.800
Method Reported
Value
p. 1 59.000
p. 1 59.500
other 60.000
p. 1 60.600
p. 1 61.000
p. 1 61.450
525.1 62.150
p. 1 62.400
p. 1 62.500
p. 1 63.560
p. 1 63.570
Method Reported
Value
509A 63.900
p. 1 64.000
p. 1 64.400
p. 1 65.300
other 65.700
other 66.700
p. 1 67.400
p. 1 67.900
other 68.300
p. 1 68.300
other 68.990
Method Reported
Value
p. 1 69.020
p. 1 69.200
509A 69.300
other 72.900
525.1 73.300
p. 1 73.500
p. 1 74.400
p. 1 74.700
p. 1 74.850
p. 1 76.300
p. 1 77.500
Method Reported
Value
other 77.700
p. 1 77.800
other 78.000
other 83.000
p. 1 101.000
509A 105.000
509A 1930.000




Water Study: 24b
True Value: 5.37 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
other 2.362
p. 1 3.360
p. 1 3.480
p. 1 3.550
525.1 3.700
509A 3.790
p. 1 3.990
509A 4.000

p. 1 4.030
p. 1 4.080
p. 1 4.250
Method Reported
Value
p. 1 4.300
p. 1 4.310
p. 1 4.320
p. 1 4.390
p. 1 4.400
p. 1 4.410
p. 1 4.410
other 4.430

p. 1 4.440
other 4.450
p. 1 4.460
Method Reported
Value
p. 1 4.490
other 4.500
other 4.500
other 4.500
p. 1 4.520
509A 4.590
509A 4.640
509A 4.670

p. 1 4.790
other 4.820
other 4.850
Method Reported
Value
p. 1 4.890
p. 1 4.970
509A 4.990
p. 1 5.050
p. 1 5.060
p. 1 5.100
525.1 5.120
D3086- 5.140
79
525.1 5.171
p. 1 5.190
p. 1 5.194
Method Reported
Value
p. 1 5.350
p. 1 5.360
509A 5.380
other 5.388
525.1 5.456
p. 1 5.460
p. 1 5.470
509A 5.550

p. 1 5.700
p. 1 5.706
other 5.710
Method Reported
Value
p. 1 5.770
other 5.780
other 7.100
p. 1 10.100
other 61.000
509A 6660.000






Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-131
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 25a
True Value: 3.17ug/L
Method Reported
Value
p. 1 0.117
SPE-500 1.600
509A 2.020
D3086-79 2.060
other 2.060
509A 2.310
p. 1 2.380
Water Study: 25b
Method Reported
Value
509A 2.570
other 2.600
509A 2.607
p. 1 2.640
p. 1 2.680
p. 1 2.687
p. 1 2.690

Method Reported
Value
505 2.710
p. 1 2.720
p. 1 2.730
SPE-500 2.754
p. 1 2.800
other 2.800
p. 1 2.800

Method Reported
Value
505 2.810
p. 1 2.860
other 2.920
508 3.000
p. 1 3.007
509A 3.010
509A 3.080

Method Reported
Value
D3086- 3.090
79
509A 3.160
p. 1 3.200
509A 3.200
other 3.200
D3086- 3.240
79
p. 1 3.270

Method Reported
Value
p. 1 3.990
other 4.000






True Value: 48.8 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
p. 1 2.360
509A 23.800
p. 1 28.020
SPE-500 30.000
SPE-500 34.720
p. 1 35.000
D3086-79 35.100
Method Reported
Value
505 36.900
other 37.000
p. 1 37.400
509A 39.100
D3086-79 39.100
other 39.900
505 40.300
Method Reported
Value
other 40.800
other 42.100
509A 42.200
p. 1 42.260
p. 1 42.300
p. 1 42.700
508 43.000
Method Reported
Value
509A 43.300
p. 1 43.500
509A 43.800
D3086- 45.000
79
509A 45.600
p. 1 45.600
509A 45.800
Method Reported
Value
other 46.000
p. 1 46.000
p. 1 46.300
p. 1 47.800
509A 48.200
p. 1 48.210
p. 1 48.400
Method Reported
Value
p. 1 51.420
other 62.200





Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-132
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 26a
True Value: 92.8 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
509A 9.130
other 20.900
D3086-79 44.500
p. 1 46.100
SPE-500 55.000
other 59.600
SPE-500 60.320
other 60.900
p. 1 64.000
other 68.900
Water Study: 26b
Method Reported
Value
other 72.300
p. 1 72.800
p. 1 73.100
p. 1 79.200
509A 79.300
p. 1 80.500
other 80.600
p. 1 82.000
p. 1 82.100
p. 1 82.300

Method Reported
Value
p. 1 82.400
other 83.500
p. 1 83.900
other 84.000
SPE-500 84.440
p. 1 84.870
509A 85.500
p. 1 86.100
other 86.200
other 86.900

Method Reported
Value
509A 87.400
p. 1 87.500
p. 1 89.300
p. 1 89.500
p. 1 91.600
p. 1 91.900
p. 1 91.990
508 92.800
505 92.900
p. 1 93.300

Method Reported
Value
p. 1 94.600
p. 1 95.000
other 95.000
509A 95.140
SPE-500 96.360
p. 1 96.600
p. 1 96.700
p. 1 98.100
p. 1 99.100
other 100.000

Method Reported
Value
D3086-79 101.000
p. 1 102.000
p. 1 104.000
p. 1 104.000
509A 105.000
p. 1 106.000
other 106.800
509A 124.000
525.1 130.100


True Value: 2. 18 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
SPE-500 0.242
SPE-500 1.200
509A 1.220
509A 1.560
505 1.590
p. 1 1.690
p. 1 1.690
other 1.700
other 1.730
509A 1.820
Method Reported
Value
p. 1 1.850
p. 1 1.930
p. 1 1.970
other 1.970
p. 1 1.980
p. 1 1.980
p. 1 2.000
p. 1 2.010
509A 2.030
p. 1 2.030
Method Reported
Value
other 2.030
p. 1 2.040
D3086-79 2.040
p. 1 2.092
other 2.100
other 2.150
SPE-500 2.159
p. 1 2.160
p. 1 2.170
other 2.180
Method Reported
Value
other 2.180
p. 1 2.183
other 2.200
p. 1 2.220
other 2.250
p. 1 2.250
D3086- 2.260
79
509A 2.280
p. 1 2.280
p. 1 2.290
Method Reported
Value
p. 1 2.290
p. 1 2.300
SPE-500 2.309
p. 1 2.350
p. 1 2.380
p. 1 2.400
p. 1 2.480
525.1 2.483
509A 2.540
508 2.560
Method Reported
Value
other 2.590
p. 1 2.600
p. 1 2.610
509A 2.700
other 2.700
p. 1 2.920
other 3.040
p. 1 3.720
p. 1 3.970

Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-133
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 27
True Value: 16.6 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
509A 2.620
p. 1 4.040
other 8.540
p. 1 9.230
505 9.400
508 12.500
p. 1 13.000
Water Study: 29
Method Reported
Value
508 14.000
p. 1 14.500
p. 1 14.900
other 14.900
p. 1 15.000
508 15.500
other 15.500

Method Reported
Value
509A 15.500
p. 1 15.700
p. 1 15.810
p. 1 15.840
other 16.000
other 16.200
p. 1 16.400

Method Reported
Value
p. 1 16.500
other 16.600
509A 16.700
p. 1 16.800
509A 17.000
p. 1 17.110
505 17.400

Method Reported
Value
other 17.400
509A 17.700
509A 17.800
p. 1 18.070
p. 1 18.100
p. 1 18.610
p. 1 19.000

Method Reported
Value
D3086-79 19.300
other 19.530
p. 1 23.100
p. 1 75.090




True Value: 5.21 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
508 2.830
p. 1 3.280
p. 1 3.570
508 3.620
508 3.910
p. 1 4.080
Method Reported
Value
508 4.080
other 4.087
p. 1 4.300
p. 1 4.331
508 4.400
SPE-500 4.403
Method Reported
Value
D3086-79 4.560
other 4.700
505 4.760
508 4.780
other 4.800
other 4.811
Method Reported
Value
508 4.820
508 4.870
508 4.930
508 5.270
p. 1 5.400
other 5.530
Method Reported
Value
508 5.600
508 5.700
508 5.800
509A 5.808
505 5.920
p. 1 5.960
Method Reported
Value
508 6.020
p. 1 6.130
508 6.300



Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-134
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 30
True Value: 34.2 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
508 0.839
other 3.691
505 13.720
505 14.300
508 15.800

508 20.400
p. 1 21.560
505 22.600
505 24.000
Water Study: 31
Method Reported
Value
other 24.700
other 25.200
508 26.700
505 27.000
508 27.200

508 28.800
508 29.100
508 29.440
508 29.500

Method Reported
Value
508 29.810
other 29.900
508 30.100
p. 1 30.200
508 31.100

p. 1 31.200
p. 1 31.500
508 31.700
505 32.300

Method Reported
Value
505 32.400
p. 1 32.800
505 33.200
508 33.500
D3086- 34.300
79
other 34.300
p. 1 34.600
508 34.700
508 35.000

Method Reported
Value
other 35.000
505 35.100
508 35.500
other 35.600
508 35.900

other 36.400
505 36.500
508 36.700
p. 1 37.000

Method Reported
Value
other 37.200
p. 1 37.500
508 38.500
508 39.100
508 39.600

508 40.700
508 41.700
508 42.670
508 55.100

True Value: 12.9 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
508 0.962
508 4.860
508 5.170
508 5.300
505 6.440
508 6.690
Method Reported
Value
508 7.780
508 9.420
505 10.100
508 10.560
other 11.000
other 11.200
Method Reported
Value
508 11.400
508 11.500
508 11.500
508 11.500
508 11.500
505 11.600
Method Reported
Value
508 11.600
508 11.700
508 11.900
508 12.300
508 12.400
508 12.500
Method Reported
Value
other 12.600
other 12.700
508 12.800
508 12.800
p. 1 13.100
other 13.400
Method Reported
Value
p. 1 14.120
508 16.400




Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-135
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 32
True Value: 17.4 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
505 1.700
508 5.350
508 7.320
525.1 8.610
other 9.600
505 10.800
525.1 10.900
505 11.100
508 13.000
508 13.200
Method Reported
Value
508 13.300
other 14.100
508 14.200
505 14.240
508 14.400
508 14.400
505 14.500
525.1 14.600
508 14.700
508 14.770
Method Reported
Value
525.1 14.900
508 15.000
508 15.100
508 15.300
508 15.400
525.1 15.450
508 15.500
525.1 15.500
508 15.700
508 16.000
Method Reported
Value
508 16.000
508 16.100
525.1 16.200
505 16.200
other 16.300
other 16.500
508 16.600
508 16.620
other 16.700
505 16.790
Method Reported
Value
508 16.800
508 17.200
508 17.200
505 17.200
505 17.600
508 17.900
508 17.940
508 18.200
508 18.900
508 19.600
Method Reported
Value
508 19.700
508 19.900
508 20.300
other 20.400
505 21.100
505 21.400
505 29.800
525.1 30.080
508 31.490

Water Study: 33
True Value: 42.3 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
525.1 27.200
508 27.700
508 28.600
508 29.700
508 29.900
508 32.000
Method Reported
Value
525.1 33.100
508 34.800
505 35.800
525.1 37.100
525.1 37.500
508 37.600
Method Reported
Value
508 37.900
other 38.900
508 39.080
505 39.500
508 39.900
508 40.200
Method Reported
Value
508 41.100
other 41.300
508 41.300
508 42.100
525.1 42.300
505 42.300
Method Reported
Value
505 44.100
other 44.200
508 44.800
508 44.900
505 44.900
508 45.300
Method Reported
Value
505 48.800
508 50.200
508 51.600
525.1 52.830
525.1 100.000

Water Study: 34
True Value: 14.2 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
508 1.540
508 6.470
525.1 9.380
525.1 9.980
508 10.900
525.1 10.900
505 10.970
other 11.200
other 11.200
Method Reported
Value
505 11.200
508 11.300
505 11.350
508 11.500
508 11.600
505 11.700
505 11.900
525.1 12.000
525.1 12.200
Method Reported
Value
508 12.200
525.1 12.700
other 13.000
525.1 13.000
508 13.100
525.1 13.100
505 13.200
508 13.200
508 13.500
Method Reported
Value
508 13.900
505 14.020
508 14.400
508 14.400
508 14.500
508 14.600
505 14.600
508 14.600
505 14.600
Method Reported
Value
505 14.800
508 14.900
505 15.100
505 15.200
525.1 15.500
508 15.700
508 15.840
505 16.200
508 16.600
Method Reported
Value
other 16.800
508 16.850
508 17.100
508 18.500
508 19.100
508 19.600
508 22.300
508 24.500

Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-136
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 35
True Value: 62.6 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
508 34.900
508 39.900
525.1 40.300
other 41.000
508 44.000
Method Reported
Value
508 44.200
505 47.100
505 47.580
508 49.800
525.1 50.500
Method Reported
Value
525.1 51.400
508 52.000
508 52.600
508 52.900
505 53.650
Method Reported
Value
508 55.700
508 57.600
508 59.400
508 59.500
505 59.800
Method Reported
Value
525.1 60.700
505 60.800
508 61.060
508 61.200
other 63.100
Method Reported
Value
525.1 63.200
508 69.700
508 70.400
508 72.600
other 90.800
Water Study: 36
True Value: 28.9 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
525.2 12.700
508 15.680
505 17.110
508.1 19.200
508 19.200
525.2 20.800
525.2 20.800
508 20.900
508 21.900
other 22.140
Method Reported
Value
508 22.400
508.1 22.600
525.2 23.100
508.1 23.200
508 23.700
508 24.400
505 25.180
525.2 25.300
508 25.400
505 26.000
Method Reported
Value
525.2 26.040
525.2 26.100
525.2 26.300
508 26.300
508 26.400
508 26.800
other 26.900
525.1 27.000
508 27.300
508 27.500
Method Reported
Value
508 27.600
505 27.600
505 27.700
other 28.000
508 28.000
505 28.200
508 28.600
other 28.800
508 29.200
505 29.400
Method Reported
Value
508 29.600
505 29.600
508 30.000
525.2 30.000
508 30.650
508 30.900
525.2 31.600
508 32.100
508 32.500
505 32.900
Method Reported
Value
525.2 33.100
525.2 33.400
508.1 39.300
508 40.900
505 42.500
505 84.900




Water Study: 37
True Value: 18.5 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
508 0.754
508 7.880
508 10.200
508 12.100
508 12.800
508 13.000
508 13.500
508 13.900
Method Reported
Value
525.2 14.800
508 15.100
525.2 15.700
508 15.800
508 15.900
508 16.000
525.2 16.000
525.2 16.000
Method Reported
Value
other 16.400
505 16.800
505 17.000
525.2 17.600
508 17.900
525.2 17.900
525.2 18.350
508 18.400
Method Reported
Value
505 18.700
508 19.100
505 19.100
505 19.200
508 19.300
505 19.400
508 19.700
505 19.800
Method Reported
Value
505 20.100
508 20.200
505 20.400
508.1 20.400
508.1 21.100
other 22.100
508 22.700
525 23.500
Method Reported
Value
other 23.600
525.2 23.800
508 25.600
505 26.150
525.2 27.300



Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-137
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 38
True Value: 34.8 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
508 14.000
508 16.400
508 17.700
525.2 17.900
525.2 18.000
508 19.600
508 22.500
505 23.400
525.2 23.400
Method Reported
Value
other 24.260
508 25.400
508.1 27.000
508 28.500
508 29.300
508 29.400
525.2 30.100
508.1 30.200
508 30.500
Method Reported
Value
505 30.800
508 31.100
508 31.200
508 31.500
508 31.800
508 31.900
505 32.000
505 32.100
508 32.600
Method Reported
Value
508.1 32.700
505 33.000
525.2 33.100
505 33.700
508 34.000
508 34.050
508 34.100
other 34.500
508 34.600
Method Reported
Value
508 35.000
525.2 35.390
525.2 35.400
508 35.700
505 36.100
525.2 37.400
508 37.420
505 38.600
525.2 40.100
Method Reported
Value
508 40.350
505 40.700
508 42.900
508 43.600
525.2 48.400
525.2 51.800



Water Study: 39
True Value: 53.8 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
508 16.100
508 28.000
525.2 35.300
508 36.800
508 40.200
505 41.050
508 41.500
508 44.600
Method Reported
Value
508 45.000
525.2 45.100
505 45.800
508 45.960
508 47.000
505 47.100
508 47.400
525.2 47.600
Method Reported
Value
525.2 49.600
505 49.900
525.2 51.000
other 51.300
508 51.500
508 51.500
508 51.800
525.2 51.820
Method Reported
Value
505 52.600
other 53.200
525.2 53.200
other 53.500
508 53.600
525.2 54.100
525.2 54.100
508.1 54.300
Method Reported
Value
508 56.300
505 56.800
508 57.000
525.2 57.900
525.2 59.300
505 61.200
505 63.000
508 67.800
Method Reported
Value
525.2 71.800
508.1 76.400
525.2 79.800





Water Study: 40
True Value: 42.8 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
508 4.420
508 22.900
508 23.700
other 26.800
508 28.000
508 28.800
525.2 32.000
508 33.300
505 33.900
Method Reported
Value
508 34.700
505 35.800
508 36.700
525.2 36.800
508.1 37.000
525.2 37.200
525.2 37.400
508.1 37.700
525.2 37.800
Method Reported
Value
508 38.100
505 38.400
508 38.600
525.2 39.100
508 39.300
508 39.400
525.2 39.540
other 39.800
525.2 40.100
Method Reported
Value
508 40.100
525.2 42.000
505 42.000
508 42.000
508 42.100
508 42.200
508 43.000
508 43.000
505 43.200
Method Reported
Value
505 43.400
508 43.500
508 43.500
other 43.690
525.2 44.100
508.1 44.900
508 45.600
508 46.200
505 46.500
Method Reported
Value
other 47.600
508 48.800
508 49.100
505 49.800
525.2 50.100
508 50.800
525.2 51.500
525.2 51.800
525.2 54.600
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-138
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 41
True Value: 26.8 ug/L
Method
508.1
508.1
508
525.2
508
505
525.2
508
Oxamyl
Reported
Value
5.060
9.950
18.700
18.900
19.000
20.900
21.200
22.200
Method
505
508
508
other
508
508
508.1
525.2

Reported
Value
22.200
22.500
22.500
23.300
24.400
24.400
24.600
25.280
Method
508
508
508
505
505
other
505
other

Reported
Value
26.000
26.100
26.300
26.300
26.500
26.800
26.800
27.400
Method
508
525.2
505
other
525.2
525.2
508
508

Reported
Value
27.400
27.600
27.900
28.000
28.000
28.100
28.400
28.400
Method
505
525.2
525.2
525.2
508.1
505
505
525.2

Reported
Value
28.400
29.500
30.300
30.500
31.800
32.200
34.200
36.000
Method Reported
Value
508 37.000
508.1 39.100
508 39.200






Water Study: 24a
True Value
Method
531.1
531.1
: 12.5 ug/L
Reported
Value
10.000
12.000
Method
531.1
531.1

Reported
Value
12.300
12.500
Method
531.1
531.1

Reported
Value
12.800
12.900
Method
other
531.1

Reported
Value
13.150
14.300
Method



Reported
Value


Method Reported
Value


Water Study: 24b
True Value
Method
531.1
531.1
: 31.3 ug/L
Reported
Value
22.800
24.700
Method
531.1
other

Reported
Value
29.100
30.500
Method
531.1
531.1

Reported
Value
32.000
32.100
Method
531.1
531.1

Reported
Value
32.600
33.100
Method



Reported
Value


Method Reported
Value


Water Study: 25a
True Value
Method
531.1
: 17.6 ug/L
Reported
Value
4.770
Method
531.1

Reported
Value
16.900
Method
531.1

Reported
Value
17.970
Method
531.1

Reported
Value
18.140
Method
531.1

Reported
Value
26.900
Method Reported
Value

Water Study: 25b
True Value
Method
531.1
: 53.5 ug/L
Reported
Value
50.700
Method
531.1

Reported
Value
52.700
Method
531.1

Reported
Value
56.730
Method
531.1

Reported
Value
58.300
Method
531.1

Reported
Value
92.600
Method Reported
Value

Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-139
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 26a
True Value: 22.6 ug/L
Method
531.1
531.1
531.1
Reported
Value
9.270
16.800
16.900
Method
531.1
other
531.1
Reported
Value
18.700
20.100
21.500
Method
other
531.1
531.1
Reported
Value
21.500
22.000
22.400
Method
531.1
531.1
531.1
Reported
Value
23.000
23.100
23.800
Method Reported
Value
531.1 25.530


Method Reported
Value



Water Study: 26b
True Value
Method
531.1
531.1
531.1
: 46.4 ug/L
Reported
Value
25.500
31.900
33.000
Method
other
531.1
531.1

Reported
Value
41.400
42.500
43.300
Method
531.1
other
531.1

Reported
Value
44.600
44.800
46.600
Method
531.1
531.1
531.1

Reported
Value
46.800
47.500
48.000
Method Reported
Value
531.1 52.640


Method Reported
Value



Water Study: 27
True Value
Method
531.1
531.1
: 12.4 ug/L
Reported
Value
3.330
10.500
Method
531.1
531.1

Reported
Value
11.500
13.000
Method
531.1
531.1

Reported
Value
16.600
17.900
Method
531.1
531.1

Reported
Value
19.400
34.700
Method Reported
Value


Method Reported
Value


Water Study: 29
True Value
Method
531.1
531.1
: 4.60 ug/L
Reported
Value
3.180
4.050
Method
531.1
531.1

Reported
Value
4.340
4.390
Method
531.1
531.1

Reported
Value
4.400
4.800
Method
other
531.1

Reported
Value
5.260
5.280
Method Reported
Value
531.1 5.620
531.1 8.650
Method Reported
Value


Water Study: 30
True Value: 6.47 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
531.1 4.600
531.1 5.080
531.1 5.240
531.1 5.390
531.1 5.450
Method Reported
Value
531.1 5.980
531.1 6.060
531.1 6.260
531.1 6.260
531.1 6.460
Method Reported
Value
531.1 6.570
531.1 6.660
531.1 6.660
531.1 6.720
531.1 6.740
Method Reported
Value
531.1 6.840
531.1 6.920
531.1 7.210
531.1 7.320
531.1 7.530
Method Reported
Value
531.1 7.570
531.1 7.680
531.1 7.840
531.1 9.150
531.1 9.490
Method Reported
Value





Water Study: 31
True Value: 5.72 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
531.1 2.000
531.1 2.740
531.1 3.010
Method Reported
Value
531.1 4.840
531.1 4.900
531.1 4.960
Method Reported
Value
531.1 5.070
531.1 5.300
531.1 5.900
Method Reported
Value
531.1 6.070
531.1 7.150
531.1 7.370
Method Reported
Value
531.1 9.140
531.1 11.200

Method Reported
Value



Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-140
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 32
True Value: 12.8 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
531.1 0.897
531.1 7.370
531.1 8.194
531.1 8.500
531.1 8.530
531.1 8.650
Method Reported
Value
531.1 8.800
531.1 8.850
531.1 9.080
531.1 9.340
531.1 9.380
531.1 9.390
Method Reported
Value
531.1 9.400
531.1 9.480
531.1 9.540
531.1 9.660
531.1 9.790
531.1 9.910
Method Reported
Value
531.1 10.100
other 10.290
531.1 10.370
531.1 10.400
531.1 10.500
531.1 10.500
Method Reported
Value
531.1 10.590
531.1 10.600
531.1 10.600
531.1 11.000
531.1 11.340
531.1 11.500
Method Reported
Value
531.1 11.600
531.1 11.660
531.1 12.300
531.1 12.500
531.1 13.600
531.1 14.400
Water Study: 33
True Value: 26.2 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
531.1 2.690
531.1 8.450
531.1 19.500
531.1 22.150
531.1 22.300
531.1 22.700
Method Reported
Value
531.1 22.800
531.1 24.100
531.1 24.290
531.1 25.400
531.1 25.400
531.1 25.600
Method Reported
Value
531.1 25.800
531.1 25.800
531.1 25.900
531.1 25.900
531.1 26.100
other 26.100
Method Reported
Value
531.1 26.200
531.1 26.200
531.1 26.300
531.1 26.600
531.1 26.800
531.1 26.900
Method Reported
Value
531.1 27.200
531.1 27.300
531.1 27.600
531.1 28.000
531.1 28.100
531.1 32.000
Method Reported
Value
531.1 34.220
531.1 40.300
531.1 41.800



Water Study: 34
True Value: 22.5 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
531.1 0.021
531.1 17.800
531.1 18.100
531.1 19.100
531.1 20.100
531.1 20.400
531.1 20.800
531.1 21.300
Method Reported
Value
531.1 21.300
531.1 21.450
531.1 21.600
531.1 21.700
531.1 21.720
531.1 21.900
531.1 22.000
531.1 22.000
Method Reported
Value
531.1 22.000
531.1 22.300
531.1 22.500
531.1 22.700
531.1 22.900
531.1 23.000
531.1 23.000
531.1 23.100
Method Reported
Value
531.1 23.500
531.1 23.500
531.1 23.600
531.1 23.700
531.1 23.900
531.1 24.000
531.1 24.300
531.1 24.300
Method Reported
Value
531.1 24.300
531.1 24.400
531.1 24.400
531.1 26.700
531.1 26.800
531.1 28.400
531.1 28.900
531.1 30.400
Method Reported
Value
531.1 30.400
531.1 34.300
531.1 45.900





Water Study: 35
True Value: 47.2 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
531.1 24.700
531.1 28.100
531.1 34.300
531.1 34.900
531.1 39.010
Method Reported
Value
531.1 39.200
531.1 39.900
531.1 41.700
531.1 42.020
531.1 42.300
Method Reported
Value
531.1 43.670
531.1 44.300
531.1 44.400
531.1 44.400
531.1 44.700
Method Reported
Value
531.1 44.700
531.1 45.200
531.1 45.800
531.1 46.200
531.1 46.300
Method Reported
Value
other 46.400
531.1 47.400
531.1 47.600
531.1 50.000
531.1 51.300
Method Reported
Value
531.1 52.400
531.1 53.100
531.1 53.400
531.1 53.500
531.1 58.400
Water Study: 36
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-141
Final - March 2003

-------
 True Value: 34.1 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
531.1 20.000
531.1 22.500
531.1 24.300
531.1 24.700
531.1 24.900
531.1 24.900
531.1 28.000
531.1 29.200
Method Reported
Value
531.1 29.400
531.1 29.700
other 31.400
531.1 31.400
531.1 31.600
531.1 31.900
531.1 32.100
531.1 32.400
Method Reported
Value
531.1 32.500
531.1 32.500
531.1 32.600
531.1 32.600
531.1 32.800
531.1 33.100
531.1 33.100
531.1 33.400
Method Reported
Value
531.1 33.500
531.1 33.800
531.1 33.900
531.1 34.000
531.1 34.500
531.1 34.500
531.1 35.000
531.1 35.600
Method Reported
Value
531.1 35.700
531.1 36.000
531.1 36.400
531.1 36.400
531.1 36.600
531.1 37.500
531.1 38.000
531.1 38.100
Method Reported
Value
531.1 38.400
other 38.700
531.1 39.100
531.1 39.600
531.1 44.700
531.1 45.400
531.1 397.000

Water Study: 37
True Value: 46.4 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
other 9.750
531.1 10.600
531.1 10.600
531.1 31.200
531.1 38.900
531.1 39.200
Method Reported
Value
531.1 39.800
531.1 40.800
531.1 41.000
531.1 41.600
531.1 41.900
531.1 42.300
Method Reported
Value
531.1 42.700
531.1 42.800
531.1 43.100
531.1 43.300
531.1 43.800
531.1 43.900
Method Reported
Value
531.1 44.800
531.1 45.200
531.1 45.300
531.1 45.500
531.1 45.700
531.1 46.100
Method Reported
Value
531.1 46.180
531.1 46.200
other 46.300
531.1 47.600
531.1 48.300
531.1 48.400
Method Reported
Value
531.1 48.400
531.1 48.730
531.1 49.100
531.1 55.300
531.1 66.700
531.1 71.100
Water Study: 38
True Value: 58.8 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
531.1 6.050
531.1 48.400
531.1 49.400
other 51.600
531.1 52.000
531.1 52.100
531.1 53.400
Method Reported
Value
531.1 53.500
531.1 55.600
531.1 55.800
531.1 56.000
531.1 57.900
531.1 58.200
531.1 58.300
Method Reported
Value
531.1 59.000
531.1 59.200
531.1 59.500
531.1 59.600
531.1 60.100
531.1 60.100
531.1 60.100
Method Reported
Value
531.1 60.600
531.1 61.300
531.1 61.500
531.1 62.000
531.1 62.000
531.1 62.300
531.1 62.300
Method Reported
Value
531.1 62.500
531.1 62.700
531.1 63.200
531.1 63.400
531.1 64.000
531.1 64.980
531.1 65.300
Method Reported
Value
531.1 65.900
531.1 67.400
531.1 67.500
531.1 68.800
531.1 74.200
531.1 79.000
531.1 84.500
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-142
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 39
True Value: 78.7 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
531.1 36.000
531.1 60.400
531.1 63.000
531.1 68.100
531.1 68.700
531.1 70.800
Method Reported
Value
531.1 72.020
531.1 72.500
531.1 72.500
531.1 73.000
531.1 74.800
531.1 76.100
Method Reported
Value
531.1 77.900
531.1 78.000
531.1 78.200
531.1 79.000
531.1 79.000
531.1 79.900
Method Reported
Value
531.1 80.000
531.1 80.400
531.1 80.500
531.1 81.840
531.1 83.600
531.1 85.400
Method Reported
Value
531.1 87.400
531.1 88.400
531.1 88.900
531.1 89.500
531.1 89.700
531.1 93.000
Method Reported
Value
531.1 97.900
531.1 109.000




Water Study: 40
True Value: 42.7 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
531.1 28.700
6610 32.100
531.1 32.700
531.1 33.600
531.1 35.800
531.1 36.500
531.1 36.800
Method Reported
Value
531.1 37.100
531.1 37.600
531.1 37.900
531.1 38.200
531.1 38.500
531.1 38.800
531.1 38.900
Method Reported
Value
531.1 39.000
531.1 39.200
531.1 39.300
531.1 39.400
531.1 39.700
531.1 39.900
531.1 40.000
Method Reported
Value
531.1 40.000
531.1 40.100
531.1 40.400
531.1 40.500
531.1 41.000
531.1 42.300
531.1 42.600
Method Reported
Value
531.1 42.700
531.1 43.300
531.1 43.510
531.1 43.700
531.1 43.800
531.1 43.900
531.1 44.100
Method Reported
Value
531.1 44.200
531.1 44.600
531.1 45.300
531.1 45.400
531.1 46.800
531.1 48.900
531.1 49.000
Water Study: 41
True Value: 33.8 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
531.1 17.800
531.1 24.700
531.1 25.200
531.1 27.600
531.1 27.800
531.1 28.800
Method Reported
Value
531.1 30.000
531.1 30.900
531.1 31.000
531.1 31.200
531.1 31.200
531.1 31.600
Method Reported
Value
531.1 31.700
531.1 31.700
531.1 31.800
531.1 32.000
531.1 32.200
531.1 32.600
Method Reported
Value
531.1 32.700
531.1 33.100
531.1 33.600
531.1 33.690
531.1 33.700
531.1 33.900
Method Reported
Value
531.1 33.900
531.1 34.000
531.1 34.400
531.1 36.700
531.1 522.00

Method Reported
Value






PCBs

Water Study: 31
True Value: 0.445 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
508A 0.220
508A 0.290
508A 0.360
Method Reported
Value
other 0.421
508A 0.430
other 0.496
Method Reported
Value
508A 0.509
508A 0.600
other 0.615
Method Reported
Value
508A 0.900
508A 0.935
508A 1.220
Method Reported
Value
508A 3.900
Method Reported
Value

Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-143
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 32
True Value: 0.959 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
508A 0.294
508A 0.406
508A 0.495
508A 0.797
Method Reported
Value
508A 0.814
508A 0.835
508A 0.882
508A 0.901
Method Reported
Value
other 0.968
508A 0.980
508A 1.000
508A 1.000
Method Reported
Value
other 1.080
508A 1.080
508A 1.095
other 1.100
Method Reported
Value
508A 1.120
508A 1.180
508A 1.281
508A 1.380
Method Reported
Value
508A 1.480
508A 6.820
Water Study: 33
True Value: 0.807 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
508A 0.407
other 0.511
508A 0.532
Method Reported
Value
508A 0.574
other 0.690
508A 1.010
Method Reported
Value
508A 1.030
508A 1.052
508A 1.110
Method Reported
Value
other 1.160
508A 1.220
508A 1.220
Method Reported
Value
other 1.320
other 2.430

Method Reported
Value



Water Study: 34
True Value: 1.08 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
508A 0.113
508A 0.417
508A 0.460
508A 0.596
508A 0.670
Method Reported
Value
other 0.688
508A 0.723
508A 0.786
508A 0.843
other 0.850
Method Reported
Value
508A 0.860
508A 0.865
other 0.900
other 0.911
508A 0.935
Method Reported
Value
508A 0.939
508A 0.941
other 1.010
other 1.020
508A 1.030
Method Reported
Value
508A 1.060
508A 1.104
508A 1.110
other 1.230
508A 1.290
Method Reported
Value
508A 13.200




Water Study: 35
True Value: 0.596 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
other 0.025
508A 0.088
508A 0.164
Method Reported
Value
508A 0.271
other 0.333
508A 0.394
Method Reported
Value
508A 0.537
508A 0.550
508A 0.666
Method Reported
Value
508A 0.706
508A 0.720
other 1.070
Method Reported
Value
508A 1.250
other 1.313
508A 3.560
Method Reported
Value



Water Study: 36
True Value: 1.13 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
other 0.380
other 0.474
508A 0.502
other 0.548
508A 0.589
Method Reported
Value
508A 0.637
508A 0.690
508A 0.700
508A 0.705
508A 0.720
Method Reported
Value
508A 0.748
508A 0.774
other 0.873
508A 0.912
508A 0.944
Method Reported
Value
508A 0.958
508A 0.986
other 1.090
508A 1.100
other 1.100
Method Reported
Value
508A 1.140
508A 1.140
508A 1.150
508A 1.270
other 1.440
Method Reported
Value
508A 1.620
508A 1.640
508A 1.860
other 3.960
other 6.400
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-144
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 37
True Value: 0.527 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
other 0.249
other 0.249
508A 0.310
508A 0.318
508A 0.360
Method Reported
Value
508A 0.372
508A 0.404
other 0.413
508A 0.422
508A 0.451
Method Reported
Value
508A 0.456
508A 0.457
508A 0.480
508A 0.508
508A 0.554
Method Reported
Value
508A 0.563
508A 0.566
508A 0.664
508A 0.686
508A 0.690
Method Reported
Value
508A 0.853
508A 0.866
508A 1.030
508A 1.060
other 1.550
Method Reported
Value
other 2.020
508A 9.610



Water Study: 38
True Value: 0.733 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
other 0.100
508A 0.436
508A 0.480
508A 0.523
508A 0.531
Method Reported
Value
other 0.541
other 0.558
508A 0.590
508A 0.593
508A 0.611
Method Reported
Value
other 0.650
508A 0.659
508A 0.668
508A 0.671
508A 0.674
Method Reported
Value
508A 0.720
508A 0.787
508A 0.860
508A 0.874
508A 0.909
Method Reported
Value
508A 0.951
508A 1.120
508A 1.200
508A 1.340
508A 1.400
Method Reported
Value
508A 1.660
other 14.900



Water Study: 39
True Value: 0.667 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
other 0.197
508A 0.310
508A 0.392
508A 0.432
other 0.504
Method Reported
Value
other 0.507
508A 0.513
508A 0.526
508A 0.533
508A 0.580
Method Reported
Value
508A 0.592
508A 0.606
508A 0.664
508A 0.700
508A 0.715
Method Reported
Value
508A 0.739
508A 0.746
other 0.756
508A 0.765
508A 0.770
Method Reported
Value
other 0.809
508A 0.815
508A 0.860
508A 0.945
508A 0.992
Method Reported
Value
508A 3.720




Water Study: 40
True Value: 1.23 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
508A 0.100
508A 0.506
other 0.520
508A 0.555
508A 0.646
Method Reported
Value
other 0.703
508A 0.730
508A 0.760
508A 0.774
508A 0.788
Method Reported
Value
other 0.854
other 0.883
other 0.885
other 0.877
508A 0.901
Method Reported
Value
508A 0.905
other 0.985
other 1.000
508A 1.020
508A 1.030
Method Reported
Value
508A 1.080
508A 1.090
other 1.120
508A 1.190
508A 1.210
Method Reported
Value
other 1.400
508A 1.570



Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-145
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 41
True Value: 1.80 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
508A 0.149
508A 0.240
508A 0.710
508A 0.712
Method
508A
other
other
508A
Pentachlorophenol
Water Study: 24a
True Value: 0.924 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
515.1 0.067
other 0.428
other 0.468
Method
515.1
515.1
525
Water Study: 24b
True Value: 16.2 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
515.1 0.596
515.1 7.120
other 7.770
Method
other
515.1
525
Water Study: 26a
True Value: 3.75 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
515.1 0.214
515.1 1.730
515.1 1.950
Method
515.1
525
515.1
Water Study: 26b
True Value: 38.5 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
515.1 11.500
515.1 12.700
515.1 18.300
Method
515.1
515.1
525
Reported
Value
0.837
0.906
0.987
1.050
Method
508A
508A
508A
other



Reported
Value
0.649
0.672
0.685
Method
525
515.1
515.1


Reported
Value
8.750
10.200
10.800
Method
515.1
515.1
other


Reported
Value
2.100
2.100
2.410
Method
other
515.1
other


Reported
Value
18.490
21.800
23.700
Method
other
515.1
515.1
Reported
Value
1.140
1.140
1.240
1.400
Method
508A
508A
other
508A



Reported
Value
0.693
0.735
0.760
Method
other
other
other


Reported
Value
11.300
11.400
14.000
Method
525
other
other


Reported
Value
2.440
2.820
3.140
Method
515.1
515.1
515.1


Reported
Value
24.400
24.500
29.700
Method
other
515.1
515.1
Reported
Value
1.460
1.590
1.690
1.790
Method
508A
508A
508A
508A



Reported
Value
0.770
0.860
0.895
Method
515.1




Reported
Value
14.200
14.500
14.900
Method
515.1




Reported
Value
3.190
3.470
3.670
Method
515.1
515.1
other


Reported
Value
31.000
33.400
34.400
Method
515.1
515.1
other
Reported
Value
1.970
1.980
2.100
2.110
Method Reported
Value
508A 2.240






Reported
Value
0.898


Method Reported
Value





Reported
Value
17.200


Method Reported
Value





Reported
Value
3.940
3.980
4.400
Method Reported
Value
515.1 5.050




Reported
Value
34.500
37.000
37.300
Method Reported
Value
515.1 41.320


Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-146
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 29
True Value: 6.73 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
other 2.150
other 2.162
Method Reported
Value
other 3.190
other 4.500
Method Reported
Value
515.1 4.620
515.1 5.820
Method Reported
Value
515.1 6.310
other 6.990
Method Reported
Value
515.1 7.000
515.1 7.030
Method Reported
Value
other 7.840

Water Study: 31
True Value: 11.4 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
515.1 1.300
515.1 3.000
515.1 4.320
Method Reported
Value
515.1 4.460
515.1 4.500
515.1 4.870
Method Reported
Value
other 6.360
515.1 7.430
515.1 8.690
Method Reported
Value
515.1 8.830
515.1 9.280
other 9.990
Method Reported
Value
other 10.340
525 10.500
515.1 10.800
Method Reported
Value
515.1 16.100


Water Study: 32
True Value: 10.7 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
515.1 1.240
other 1.650
515.1 3.120
other 3.780
515.1 4.950
515.1 5.820
Method Reported
Value
515.1 6.140
515.1 6.600
515.1 6.980
515.1 7.360
515.1 7.361
515.1 7.390
Method Reported
Value
other 7.440
515.1 7.920
515.1 8.260
515.1 8.500
other 8.720
515.1 8.970
Method Reported
Value
515.1 9.720
515.1 9.810
515.1 9.875
515.1 10.200
515.1 10.200
515.1 10.300
Method Reported
Value
515.1 10.300
515.1 10.400
other 10.400
515.1 10.500
other 10.720
other 11.700
Method Reported
Value
515.1 12.300
515.1 13.400
515.1 20.000
515.1 20.700
515.1 23.400

Water Study: 33
True Value: 2.72 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
515.1 1.020
515.1 1.400
515.1 1.400
other 1.810
515.1 2.280
Method Reported
Value
515.1 2.340
515.1 2.380
other 2.400
515.1 2.490
515.1 2.520
Method Reported
Value
515.1 2.520
515.1 2.540
515.1 2.600
515.1 2.640
515.1 2.710
Method Reported
Value
515.1 2.730
515.1 2.760
515.1 2.811
other 2.840
515.1 3.000
Method Reported
Value
515.1 3.010
515.1 3.010
515.1 3.110
515.1 4.140
other 4.370
Method Reported
Value
other 5.350
other 6.000
515.1 8.500


Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-147
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 34
True Value: 22.6 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
515.1 1.010
515.1 3.140
515.1 3.170
515.1 3.320
515.1 3.360
515.1 5.650
other 6.603
515.1 7.800
Method Reported
Value
515.1 8.860
515.1 8.910
515.1 8.950
515.1 10.600
515.1 11.100
other 11.200
515.1 11.500
other 12.500
Method Reported
Value
515.1 14.700
515.2 15.800
other 17.100
515.1 17.400
515.1 17.400
other 17.500
515.1 18.020
515.1 18.400
Method Reported
Value
515.1 18.700
515.1 18.800
other 19.100
515.1 19.500
other 19.750
515.1 19.900
515.1 20.100
515.1 21.000
Method Reported
Value
other 21.900
515.1 22.500
515.1 22.600
515.2 22.600
other 22.950
515.1 24.600
515.1 24.800
other 25.300
Method Reported
Value
other 25.700
515.1 27.600
515.1 30.500
515.1 61.100
515.1 80.000



Water Study: 35
True Value: 8.91 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
other 2.860
515.1 3.190
515.1 3.230
515.1 3.770
515.1 4.420
515.1 5.580
Method Reported
Value
515.1 5.810
515.1 5.970
515.1 6.290
515.1 6.710
515.1 6.920
other 6.940
Method Reported
Value
515.1 7.000
515.1 7.370
515.1 7.430
515.1 7.600
other 7.730
515.1 7.894
Method Reported
Value
515.1 7.900
other 7.910
515.1 7.979
other 8.220
515.1 8.850
other 9.440
Method Reported
Value
other 9.760
515.1 10.100
515.1 10.500
515.1 10.800
other 10.850
other 11.200
Method Reported
Value
other 12.000
515.1 17.500
515.1 32.800
515.1 36.800
515.1 73.500

Water Study: 36
True Value: 14.6 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
515.1 1.650
515.1 3.850
515.1 4.420
other 5.390
515.2 7.750
515.1 8.540
other 8.620
515.1 8.890
Method Reported
Value
515.1 9.940
other 9.960
other 10.000
515.1 10.400
515.1 10.400
515.2 10.500
515.1 10.500
515.1 10.600
Method Reported
Value
515.1 11.500
515.1 11.500
555 11.500
515.1 11.800
555 12.000
515.1 12.000
515.1 12.000
515.1 12.200
Method Reported
Value
515.1 12.500
525.2 12.700
515.2 12.800
515.1 12.800
515.2 12.900
515.1 13.500
515.2 13.600
515.2 13.900
Method Reported
Value
515 14.200
515.2 14.300
515 14.370
555 14.800
555 14.900
other 15.100
515.1 15.700
515.2 18.000
Method Reported
Value
515.1 18.600
555 20.500
525.2 21.000
515.2 21.400
515.1 22.000
515.1 28.500


Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-148
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 37
True Value: 6.59 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
515.1 0.203
515.2 1.090
515.1 1.200
other 1.270
515.1 1.380
515.1 1.490
515.1 1.840
Method Reported
Value
515.1 2.630
other 3.600
515.2 3.860
other 3.940
515.1 3.950
515.1 4.020
515.1 4.170
Method Reported
Value
515.2 4.650
515.1 4.660
515.2 4.770
515.2 4.870
515.1 4.910
515.1 4.930
515.1 4.970
Method Reported
Value
515.2 5.070
555 5.080
515.1 5.100
515.1 5.370
515.1 5.750
515.2 5.930
other 6.070
Method Reported
Value
555 6.110
555 6.390
555 6.540
other 6.680
515.1 6.750
515.2 7.440
555 8.140
Method Reported
Value
515.1 8.950
other 9.070
other 9.540
555 16.900
515.1 22.000


Water Study: 38
True Value: 14.7 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
515.2 2.730
515.1 5.150
515.1 6.110
other 9.530
other 9.600
515.2 10.100
515.1 10.100
515.1 10.300
Method Reported
Value
515.1 10.300
other 11.200
515.1 11.700
515.1 12.200
515.1 12.600
other 12.700
515.1 12.700
515.1 12.800
Method Reported
Value
515.2 13.300
515.1 13.300
515.1 13.400
515.1 13.400
515.1 13.400
555 13.600
515.1 14.200
515.2 14.340
Method Reported
Value
515.1 14.500
515.2 15.000
515.1 15.100
515.2 15.100
other 15.200
515.1 15.400
other 15.700
515.2 15.900
Method Reported
Value
515.1 16.000
555 16.200
555 16.200
515.1 16.500
515.1 16.500
515.1 16.700
515.2 17.000
515.1 17.400
Method Reported
Value
525.2 18.000
525.2 18.800
515.2 19.300
515.2 19.500
515.1 19.800
515.1 23.200
515.1 27.800
515.1 46.800
Water Study: 39
True Value: 43.7ug/L
Method Reported
Value
other 2.030
515.1 15.100
515.1 15.500
515.1 15.500
515.1 17.200
515.1 19.400
515.1 24.600
Method Reported
Value
515.1 25.120
515.1 26.300
other 28.400
515.2 29.000
515.2 29.700
other 30.100
515.2 30.500
Method Reported
Value
515.1 32.400
515.2 32.700
515.1 33.400
515.2 35.810
515.1 37.100
515.1 37.100
515.2 38.000
Method Reported
Value
515.1 38.000
515.1 39.000
515.1 39.000
515.1 39.300
515.1 39.500
555 39.600
other 39.900
Method Reported
Value
555 40.800
555 41.500
other 41.600
525.2 42.200
other 42.300
515.1 42.500
515.2 43.260
Method Reported
Value
other 44.300
other 44.400
515.1 45.600
515.1 48.900
515.2 51.600
555 53.700

Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-149
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 40
True Value: 22.3 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
555 10.200
515.1 12.700
515.1 14.400
515.1 14.500
515.1 14.900
515.2 15.000
515.1 15.900
515.2 15.900
Method Reported
Value
515.1 16.000
other 16.200
515.1 16.500
515.1 17.000
515.1 17.200
other 17.400
515.1 17.500
555 17.600
Method Reported
Value
515.1 17.600
515.2 17.800
515.1 17.800
515.2 18.100
515.1 18.800
515.1 18.900
515.1 19.600
515.1 19.600
Method Reported
Value
515.1 20.100
other 20.100
555 20.500
515.2 20.600
other 21.200
515.1 21.300
515.2 21.400
515.1 22.300
Method Reported
Value
515.2 22.500
515.1 22.900
515.1 22.900
other 23.100
525.2 23.400
515.1 23.600
515.1 23.800
515.1 24.200
Method Reported
Value
other 27.100
515.2 27.390
515.1 28.200
515.1 28.900
525.2 31.300
515.2 32.900
515.2 40.300

Water Study: 41
True Value: 34.6 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
other 3.110
515.1 10.800
515.1 18.000
515.1 19.300
515.2 20.900
515.1 20.900
Method Reported
Value
515.1 21.800
555 21.800
515.2 24.600
515.2 25.300
other 27.000
515.1 27.800
Method Reported
Value
515.1 27.900
515.1 29.700
515.2 30.000
515.1 30.100
515.1 30.300
515.1 30.600
Method Reported
Value
515.2 30.890
other 31.100
other 31.400
555 31.500
515.2 32.000
555 32.270
Method Reported
Value
515.1 32.400
other 33.000
555 33.000
515.1 33.000
other 33.200
515.1 34.000
Method Reported
Value
other 38.600
525.2 39.300
515.2 41.900
515.1 46.100
515.1 48.400
other 57.600
Picloram
Water Study: 24a
True Value: 17.5ug/L
Method Reported
Value
515.1 1.480
515.1 6.500
Method Reported
Value
other 9.590
other 10.900
Method Reported
Value
other 10.900
515.1 11.800
Method
515.1
other



Reported
Value
12.100
13.300
Method Reported
Value
other 14.400
515.1 19.000
Method Reported
Value
515.1 25.600

Water Study: 24b
True Value: 2.63 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
515.1 0.360
515.1 1.500
Method Reported
Value
other 1.550
other 1.790
Method Reported
Value
other 1.950
other 2.400
Method Reported
Value
other 2.410
515.1 3.120
Method Reported
Value
515.1 3.650
515.1 3.960
Method Reported
Value
515.1 4.460
Water Study: 26a
True Value: 31.2 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
515.1 0.433
other 1.130
Method Reported
Value
515.1 15.900
515.1 16.200
Method Reported
Value
515.1 16.800
other 20.000
Method Reported
Value
515.1 21.700
515.1 23.300
Method Reported
Value
515.1 26.500
515.1 28.400
Method Reported
Value
other 30.270
515.1 50.840
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-150
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 26b
True Value: 1.33 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
other 0.023
515.1 0.270
Method Reported
Value
515.1 0.688
515.1 0.790
Method Reported
Value
other 0.996
other 1.140
Method Reported
Value
515.1 1.220
515.1 1.270
Method Reported
Value
515.1 1.290
515.1 1.380
Method Reported
Value
515.1 2.190

Water Study: 30
True Value: 22.4 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
515.1 0.0412
515.1 5.600
515.1 7.470
515.1 9.930
515.1 10.700
Method Reported
Value
515.1 11.000
515.1 12.000
other 13.100
515.1 13.400
other 15.590
Method Reported
Value
515.1 16.200
515.1 16.500
515.1 17.200
other 17.600
515.1 18.200
Method Reported
Value
other 18.650
515.1 21.200
515.1 21.220
515.1 21.900
other 25.500
Method Reported
Value
other 25.690
other 25.700
515.1 27.600
other 29.600
other 35.100
Method Reported
Value
515.1 40.800




Water Study: 31
True Value: 26.7 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
other 5.320
515.1 9.600
Method Reported
Value
515.1 9.960
515.1 10.200
Method Reported
Value
515.1 11.400
515.1 11.800
Method Reported
Value
515.1 15.000
other 17.730
Method Reported
Value
515.1 18.600
other 19.900
Method Reported
Value
515.1 32.750
515.1 69.200
Water Study: 32
True Value: 10.6 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
other 0.889
515.1 2.100
515.1 2.880
515.1 2.910
515.1 3.070
515.1 6.530
Method Reported
Value
515.1 6.690
515.1 7.040
515.1 7.150
515.1 7.760
515.1 7.810
515.1 7.900
Method Reported
Value
515.1 8.110
515.1 8.250
515.1 8.652
515.1 8.730
515.1 8.900
515.1 9.820
Method Reported
Value
515.1 10.200
515.1 11.000
515.1 11.200
515.1 11.300
515.1 11.400
515.1 11.900
Method Reported
Value
515.1 12.900
515.1 13.100
515.1 13.400
other 15.200
515.1 15.700
other 16.260
Method Reported
Value
515.1 20.300
515.1 21.400




Water Study: 33
True Value: 17.4 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
515.1 7.730
other 8.000
515.1 8.070
515.1 9.170
Method Reported
Value
515.1 9.350
515.1 9.360
515.1 10.100
515.1 11.400
Method Reported
Value
515.1 12.000
other 12.100
515.1 12.400
515.1 13.060
Method Reported
Value
515.1 13.900
515.1 14.500
515.1 14.800
515.1 14.900
Method Reported
Value
515.1 14.900
515.1 17.700
515.1 18.200
other 20.000
Method Reported
Value
515.1 23.700
515.1 32.400
515.1 46.300
515.1 149.000
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-151
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 34
True Value: 13.2 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
515.1 0.542
515.2 0.577
515.1 3.060
other 3.340
515.1 4.410
515.1 5.220
515.1 5.470
515.1 5.640
Method Reported
Value
515.1 6.190
515.1 6.830
other 6.860
515.1 6.990
515.1 7.000
515.1 7.320
515.1 7.540
515.1 7.980
Method Reported
Value
515.1 8.700
515.1 9.310
other 9.390
515.2 9.450
515.1 9.940
515.1 9.980
515.1 9.990
515.1 10.150
Method Reported
Value
515.1 10.200
515.1 10.800
other 10.800
515.1 11.300
515.1 11.500
other 11.930
515.2 12.100
515.1 12.100
Method Reported
Value
515.1 12.400
other 12.700
515.1 13.100
515.1 13.700
515.1 13.700
515.1 14.970
515.1 15.280
other 15.400
Method Reported
Value
515.2 15.950
515.1 16.800
515.2 28.800





Water Study: 35
True Value: 62.5 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
515.2 3.760
515.1 11.920
515.1 13.400
515.1 14.990
Method Reported
Value
515.1 19.700
515.1 28.000
515.1 36.060
515.1 44.600
Method Reported
Value
515.1 44.700
515.1 44.900
515.1 47.300
515.1 50.100
Method Reported
Value
515.1 51.600
515.1 52.500
515.1 54.800
515.1 57.000
Method Reported
Value
515.1 60.500
other 64.100
515.2 67.860
515.1 83.000
Method Reported
Value
515.1 83.900
515.1 85.000
other 132.000
515.2 149.600
Water Study: 36
True Value: 42.2 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
515.2 1.500
515.1 3.440
515.2 4.830
515.2 7.630
515.2 8.250
515.1 9.280
515.1 13.100
515.1 13.900
Method Reported
Value
515.1 15.000
515.1 16.500
515.1 16.700
other 17.100
515.2 19.100
515.1 19.500
515.1 20.100
515.2 22.000
Method Reported
Value
515.1 22.200
515.1 22.400
515.1 25.200
515.1 25.920
555 27.500
515.1 28.800
515.1 29.000
other 29.900
Method Reported
Value
515.1 30.700
515.1 31.400
515.1 32.000
515.1 32.400
515.1 32.900
515.1 33.600
515.1 33.800
515.1 34.200
Method Reported
Value
515 34.800
555 35.700
515.1 36.900
515.2 37.400
515.1 37.700
515.1 39.000
555 39.300
555 39.800
Method Reported
Value
515.1 41.400
515.1 44.000
515.2 53.000
515.2 54.100
other 63.000



Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-152
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 37
True Value: 23.3 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
515.2 0.907
other 1.630
515.2 2.880
other 4.120
515.2 5.500
other 8.360
555 8.540
Method Reported
Value
other 8.750
515.2 13.600
other 13.900
other 13.900
other 14.200
other 14.300
other 14.500
Method Reported
Value
other 16.800
515.2 17.200
555 17.700
other 17.700
555 18.100
515.2 18.500
other 18.600
Method Reported
Value
515.2 19.100
other 19.300
other 19.800
other 20.000
other 20.200
other 20.700
other 20.900
Method Reported
Value
555 22.000
other 22.300
other 22.300
555 23.300
other 23.600
other 24.500
other 25.400
Method Reported
Value
555 25.900
other 26.700
other 32.900




Water Study: 38
True Value: 56.4 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
other 6.070
other 10.400
other 12.100
515.2 15.400
555 16.000
515.2 17.500
555 19.000
other 20.800
Method Reported
Value
other 22.200
other 26.900
other 28.800
other 30.600
other 32.400
other 33.000
other 33.500
other 34.000
Method Reported
Value
555 35.000
other 35.800
other 36.200
other 38.400
other 38.400
other 39.600
other 40.200
other 41.400
Method Reported
Value
other 41.600
515.2 41.600
other 44.800
515.2 45.360
515.2 46.700
other 47.300
other 47.800
other 49.000
Method Reported
Value
other 49.600
515.2 49.700
other 51.900
other 53.100
other 53.100
other 61.300
other 71.300
515.2 72.100
Method Reported
Value
515.2 79.100
515.2 108.800
515.2 256.000





Water Study: 39
True Value: 74.9 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
515.2 1.830
515.2 2.010
other 2.320
555 7.250
other 12.200
515.2 12.900
other 17.900
Method Reported
Value
515.2 18.500
other 27.800
other 29.700
515.2 30.200
515.2 35.400
other 37.400
other 41.200
Method Reported
Value
555 41.900
other 42.230
515.2 43.040
other 45.900
other 45.900
other 46.200
other 46.300
Method Reported
Value
other 51.000
other 51.300
other 51.400
other 52.300
555 56.100
other 59.800
other 60.900
Method Reported
Value
other 63.200
555 64.300
other 69.400
515.2 70.250
other 70.700
555 70.800
other 72.800
Method Reported
Value
other 73.400
other 78.500





Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-153
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 40
True Value: 44.0 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
555 1.080
515.2 8.780
other 10.900
515.2 12.900
515.2 13.600
other 13.700
515.2 17.700
other 18.200
Method Reported
Value
other 21.400
515.2 22.000
other 22.200
other 22.400
other 23.300
other 24.200
other 24.500
other 27.200
Method Reported
Value
other 27.400
other 27.600
other 29.100
other 29.500
other 30.800
515.2 31.200
other 31.300
other 31.600
Method Reported
Value
555 31.800
other 32.300
other 33.400
515.2 33.700
other 34.900
other 35.200
other 35.500
other 35.900
Method Reported
Value
other 36.300
555 37.900
515.2 38.500
other 38.700
515.2 40.800
other 42.200
other 43.800
other 48.200
Method Reported
Value
515.2 53.000
other 78.700
other 97.700





Water Study: 41
True Value: 62.1 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
other 0.852
515.2 4.040
other 8.720
other 21.100
515.2 21.400
555 23.100
Method Reported
Value
515.2 25.100
other 26.000
515.2 29.000
other 32.500
other 33.300
other 34.000
Method Reported
Value
other 35.000
other 37.700
other 39.500
other 41.000
515.2 41.100
other 41.700
Method Reported
Value
515.2 41.900
other 43.300
other 44.100
555 48.800
515.2 50.160
other 50.200
Method Reported
Value
other 50.800
other 51.800
other 52.600
other 52.900
other 53.200
other 54.100
Method Reported
Value
555 58.080
other 59.800
other 63.700
other 75.000
other 96.400

Tetrachloroethylene
Water Study: 27
True Value: 7.76 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 5.870
other 6.000
502.2 6.400
502.2 6.660
502.2 6.660
502.1 6.710
Method Reported
Value
502.2 6.800
524.2 6.820
502.2 6.860
524.2 6.860
502.2 6.890
502.2 6.900
Method Reported
Value
524.2 6.900
524.2 7.040
502.2 7.090
524.2 7.140
524.2 7.400
502.2 7.490
Method Reported
Value
502.2 7.590
524.1 7.600
502.2 7.700
524.2 7.700
524.2 7.810
502.2 8.020
Method Reported
Value
502.2 8.030
502.2 8.380
502.2 8.500
524.1 8.580
502.2 8.610
other 8.630
Method Reported
Value
524.2 9.030
502.2 9.080
524.2 9.150
524.1 10.600
502.2 10.770

Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-154
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 29
True Value: 15.6 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 10.250
502.2 12.800
524.2 13.300
502.2 13.600
502.2 13.900
524.2 13.900
Method Reported
Value
524.1 14.000
502.2 14.100
524.2 14.200
524.2 14.600
524.2 14.680
524.2 14.800
Method Reported
Value
524.2 14.850
502.2 15.200
502.2 15.200
502.2 15.400
524.2 15.600
other 15.600
Method Reported
Value
502.2 15.700
524.2 16.000
502.2 16.190
524.2 16.200
502.2 16.300
502.2 16.300
Method Reported
Value
502.2 16.600
502.2 16.700
524.2 16.800
other 16.820
524.2 16.900
524.1 17.000
Method Reported
Value
other 18.800
502.2 19.000
524.2 19.500
502.2 21.100


Water Study: 30
True Value: 9.00 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.1 5.690
502.2 6.381
524.2 6.800
other 6.850
524.2 7.110
524.2 7.200
502.2 7.330
502.2 7.330
524.2 7.620
524.2 7.770
Method Reported
Value
524.2 7.880
502.2 7.920
524.2 8.010
524.2 8.230
524.2 8.250
502.2 8.270
502.2 8.340
502.2 8.370
502.2 8.420
502.2 8.430
Method Reported
Value
other 8.430
524.2 8.580
524.2 8.580
524.2 8.590
524.2 8.600
524.1 8.610
502.2 8.610
524.2 8.640
other 8.720
502.2 8.800
Method Reported
Value
502.2 8.810
502.2 8.820
524.1 8.880
524.2 8.900
502.2 8.900
524.2 8.900
524.2 8.900
502.2 8.920
524.2 8.940
524.1 8.990
Method Reported
Value
502.2 9.040
502.2 9.070
524.2 9.170
502.2 9.240
502.2 9.250
other 9.270
524.2 9.400
502.2 9.420
524.2 9.490
other 9.520
Method Reported
Value
524.2 9.580
524.2 9.700
524.2 9.710
524.2 9.800
other 10.020
524.2 10.200
502.2 10.200
524.2 10.300
502.2 10.400
502.2 11.900
Water Study: 31
True Value: 11.6 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 9.305
502.2 9.410
524.2 9.900
502.2 10.400
524.2 10.500
524.2 10.500
Method Reported
Value
502.2 10.600
other 10.600
524.2 10.900
524.2 10.900
502.2 11.000
524.1 11.200
Method Reported
Value
502.1 11.300
524.2 11.360
502.2 11.400
502.2 11.500
502.1 11.500
other 11.600
Method Reported
Value
502.2 11.600
502.2 11.700
524.2 11.800
524.2 11.800
502.2 11.900
524.2 11.910
Method Reported
Value
502.2 12.000
524.2 12.200
524.2 12.300
524.2 12.300
524.2 12.400
524.2 12.540
Method Reported
Value
502.1 12.600
524.2 13.100
502.2 14.800



Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-155
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 32
True Value: 7.43 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 4.590
502.2 5.260
502.2 5.690
524.2 6.000
502.2 6.010
other 6.280
524.2 6.410
502.2 6.450
502.2 6.530
524.2 6.560
524.2 6.700
Method Reported
Value
524.2 6.700
524.2 6.800
502.2 6.840
502.2 6.850
524.2 6.860
other 6.900
502.2 6.930
524.2 6.980
524.2 7.000
502.2 7.000
other 7.000
Method Reported
Value
524.2 7.010
524.2 7.010
502.2 7.020
502.2 7.040
502.1 7.100
502.2 7.180
524.2 7.258
524.2 7.310
524.2 7.310
524.2 7.350
502.2 7.370
Method Reported
Value
502.2 7.390
502.2 7.440
524.2 7.450
502.1 7.460
502.2 7.490
524.2 7.500
524.1 7.570
524.2 7.620
502.2 7.620
502.2 7.620
502.2 7.650
Method Reported
Value
524.2 7.670
502.2 7.700
524.2 7.700
524.2 7.700
524.2 7.720
502.1 7.740
524.2 7.770
502.2 7.770
524.2 7.840
502.2 7.870
524.2 7.900
Method Reported
Value
524.2 8.060
502.2 8.300
524.2 8.500
502.1 8.800
524.2 8.970
524.2 9.040
524.2 9.200
502.2 10.400



Water Study: 33
True Value: 12.9 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 9.540
502.2 9.970
524.2 10.670
524.1 11.100
other 11.150
524.2 11.510
Method Reported
Value
502.2 11.610
502.2 11.700
524.2 11.800
524.2 11.900
524.2 12.000
502.2 12.300
Method Reported
Value
524.2 12.400
502.2 12.500
other 12.500
502.1 12.700
502.2 12.800
524.2 12.900
Method Reported
Value
524.2 13.000
502.2 13.100
502.2 13.400
502.2 13.400
502.2 13.400
502.2 13.400
Method Reported
Value
502.2 13.600
524.2 13.800
524.2 13.800
502.2 13.800
524.2 13.900
502.2 14.000
Method Reported
Value
other 14.300
524.2 14.400
524.2 15.400
502.2 17.600


Water Study: 34
True Value: 16.5 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 12.500
524.2 12.700
502.2 13.300
524.2 14.100
502.2 14.100
502.2 14.100
524.2 14.100
524.2 14.200
524.2 14.400
502.2 14.520
Method Reported
Value
502.1 14.600
524.2 14.600
524.2 14.900
502.2 15.000
502.2 15.000
other 15.100
524.2 15.100
502.2 15.200
524.2 15.200
502.2 15.300
Method Reported
Value
524.2 15.400
524.2 15.400
502.2 15.600
502.2 15.600
other 15.800
502.2 15.800
502.2 15.800
524.2 15.900
502.2 15.900
524.2 15.900
Method Reported
Value
524.2 16.000
524.2 16.100
502.2 16.100
524.2 16.100
524.2 16.100
502.2 16.200
524.2 16.300
502.2 16.300
524.2 16.400
524.2 16.480
Method Reported
Value
524.2 16.500
502.2 16.500
524.2 16.600
524.2 16.620
502.2 16.700
502.2 16.700
524.2 16.770
502.2 16.900
502.2 17.100
502.2 17.100
Method Reported
Value
524.2 17.100
524.2 17.200
524.2 17.300
502.2 17.400
524.2 17.400
524.2 17.500
502.2 17.540
524.2 17.870
524.2 17.900
502.2 19.000
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-156
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 35
True Value: 11.6 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 9.070
524.2 9.510
524.2 10.000
502.2 10.100
524.2 10.200
502.2 10.200
Method Reported
Value
524.2 10.380
502.2 10.400
524.2 10.600
524.2 10.700
502.2 10.710
502.2 10.800
Method Reported
Value
502.2 10.900
524.2 11.000
524.2 11.000
524.2 11.100
524.2 11.200
524.2 11.300
Method Reported
Value
524.2 11.400
502.2 11.400
524.2 11.400
502.2 11.500
524.2 11.500
502.2 11.510
Method Reported
Value
502.2 11.600
524.2 11.600
other 11.620
524.2 11.800
524.2 12.000
524.2 12.200
Method Reported
Value
524.2 12.400
502.2 12.500
other 12.800
524.2 12.900
524.2 14.930
502.2 20.800
Water Study: 36
True Value: 18.5 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 7.510
524.2 14.200
524.2 14.600
524.2 14.800
524.2 15.100
502.2 15.200
502.2 15.300
502.2 15.800
502.2 15.800
524.2 16.260
502.2 16.400
Method Reported
Value
524.2 16.500
524.2 16.700
502.2 16.780
524.2 16.800
524.2 16.800
502.2 16.800
524.2 16.920
524.2 16.970
other 17.000
502.2 17.000
524.2 17.000
Method Reported
Value
502.2 17.000
502.2 17.100
524.2 17.200
524.2 17.200
524.2 17.300
524.2 17.350
524.2 17.400
524.2 17.600
502.2 17.700
524.2 17.700
524.2 17.800
Method Reported
Value
502.2 17.800
502.2 17.900
524.2 18.000
502.2 18.000
502.2 18.100
502.2 18.100
502.2 18.200
524.2 18.300
524.2 18.300
524.2 18.300
other 18.400
Method Reported
Value
other 18.400
524.2 18.500
524.2 18.500
other 18.600
524.2 18.600
502.2 18.600
502.2 18.600
524.2 18.800
524.2 18.980
524.2 19.100
502.2 19.300
Method Reported
Value
524.2 19.900
524.2 20.380
524.2 20.500
524.2 21.100
502.2 22.500
524.2 22.800





Water Study: 37
True Value: 9.60 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 7.820
502.2 8.060
524.2 8.060
other 8.100
502.2 8.170
524.2 8.230
502.2 8.290
524.2 8.620
Method Reported
Value
524.2 8.690
502.2 8.700
524.2 8.820
502.2 8.860
524.2 8.900
524.2 8.910
524.2 8.960
524.2 9.020
Method Reported
Value
524.2 9.060
502.2 9.100
524.2 9.210
524.2 9.220
524.2 9.24
524.2 9.300
524.2 9.330
502.2 9.330
Method Reported
Value
other 9.340
524.2 9.350
502.2 9.390
524.2 9.390
502.2 9.390
502.2 9.420
502.2 9.450
502.2 9.510
Method Reported
Value
524.2 9.560
524.2 9.560
502.2 9.620
524.2 9.620
502.2 9.660
other 9.780
502.2 9.890
524.2 9.920
Method Reported
Value
524.2 9.930
524.2 9.990
502.2 10.500
502.2 11.000
524.2 11.100
524.2 11.900
524.2 12.400
524.2 13.300
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-157
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 38
True Value: 14.1 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 6.720
524.2 11.200
524.2 11.300
524.2 11.300
524.2 11.600
502.2 11.700
502.2 11.800
524.2 12.700
524.2 12.700
502.2 12.700
Method Reported
Value
524.2 12.700
524.2 12.800
502.2 12.800
524.2 12.900
502.2 12.900
524.2 13.000
502.2 13.000
524.2 13.000
502.2 13.200
524.2 13.200
Method Reported
Value
502.2 13.200
524.2 13.200
524.2 13.200
524.2 13.300
524.2 13.300
other 13.400
524.2 13.500
524.2 13.600
other 13.600
502.2 13.600
Method Reported
Value
524.2 13.600
other 13.800
524.2 13.800
524.2 13.900
524.2 13.900
502.2 13.980
524.2 14.000
524.2 14.100
524.2 14.100
502.2 14.200
Method Reported
Value
524.2 14.270
502.2 14.300
524.2 14.300
524.2 14.660
502.2 14.700
524.2 14.800
502.2 14.800
502.2 14.900
502.2 14.900
502.2 15.000
Method Reported
Value
524.2 15.000
524.2 15.500
524.2 15.600
524.2 16.000
524.2 16.400
502.2 19.700




Water Study: 39
True Value: 7.60 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 5.400
524.2 5.680
524.2 5.770
502.2 5.950
524.2 6.510
524.2 6.520
524.2 6.570
502.2 6.590
Method Reported
Value
524.2 6.610
524.2 6.840
502.2 6.900
524.2 6.920
524.2 6.930
524.2 6.960
524.2 7.100
other 7.170
Method Reported
Value
524.2 7.200
502.2 7.240
524.2 7.350
524.2 7.350
524.2 7.400
524.2 7.400
524.2 7.420
502.2 7.480
Method Reported
Value
524.2 7.480
524.2 7.500
524.2 7.510
502.2 7.580
524.2 7.600
502.2 7.790
502.2 7.820
502.2 7.870
Method Reported
Value
524.2 7.900
524.2 7.980
524.2 8.000
524.2 8.020
524.2 8.050
502.2 8.090
524.2 8.150
524.2 8.250
Method Reported
Value
524.2 8.400
524.2 8.560
502.2 8.560
502.2 8.770
524.2 31.770



Water Study: 40
True Value: 14.7 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 6.000
502.2 11.200
524.2 11.800
524.2 12.000
524.2 12.100
524.2 12.600
524.2 12.620
524.2 12.800
524.2 12.900
524.2 12.900
Method Reported
Value
524.2 12.900
524.2 13.100
524.2 13.100
other 13.200
524.2 13.200
524.2 13.300
524.2 13.500
524.2 13.600
524.2 13.700
502.2 13.700
Method Reported
Value
524.2 13.800
524.2 13.800
other 14.000
524.2 14.100
524.2 14.100
524.2 14.300
524.2 14.300
524.2 14.400
524.2 14.400
524.2 14.500
Method Reported
Value
524.2 14.500
502.2 14.500
502.2 14.500
524.2 14.500
502.2 14.800
other 14.800
502.2 14.900
524.2 14.900
524.2 14.900
524.2 15.000
Method Reported
Value
502.2 15.000
502.2 15.000
524.2 15.000
502.2 15.100
502.2 15.200
502.2 15.200
524.2 15.300
524.2 15.300
524.2 15.400
524.2 15.700
Method Reported
Value
524.2 15.800
502.2 15.900
502.2 16.000
502.2 16.200
524.2 16.700
524.2 17.600
502.2 17.800
524.2 18.000


Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-158
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 41
True Value: 11.5 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 6.720
524.2 9.490
502.2 9.680
524.2 9.730
524.2 9.850
524.2 9.970
524.2 10.000
Method Reported
Value
502.2 10.200
524.2 10.200
502.2 10.300
524.2 10.600
524.2 10.800
524.2 10.800
524.2 10.900
Method Reported
Value
524.2 10.900
502.2 10.900
524.2 10.900
524.2 11.000
524.2 11.100
502.2 11.200
524.2 11.200
Method Reported
Value
other 11.200
524.2 11.200
524.2 11.230
524.2 11.300
524.2 11.300
502.2 11.400
502.2 11.600
Method Reported
Value
524.2 11.600
502.2 11.700
502.2 11.700
524.2 11.740
524.2 11.800
524.2 11.800
524.2 12.000
Method Reported
Value
524.2 12.200
502.2 12.300
524.2 13.000
502.2 13.100
524.2 14.000
502.2 14.500

 Thallium

 Water Study: 24a
 True Value: 2.00 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
279.2 1.100
279.2 1.530
279.2 1.730
279.2 1.740
279.2 1.760
Method Reported
Value
279.2 1.770
279.2 1.800
279.2 1.800
279.2 1.830
279.2 1.870
Method Reported
Value
279.2 1.900
200.7A 1.900
279.2 1.920
279.2 2.000
279.2 2.000
Method Reported
Value
279.2 2.030
279.1 2.100
279.2 2.140
200.7A 2.160
279.2 2.200
Method Reported
Value
279.2 2.300
279.1 2.400
200.7A 2.400
279.2 2.570
279.2 2.600
Method Reported
Value
279.2 2.610
279.2 3.000
other 4.000
other 6.150
279.2 16.500
Water Study: 24b
True Value: 18.0 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
279.2 2.000
279.2 9.600
279.2 12.000
279.2 14.500
279.2 14.800
200.7A 15.600
Method Reported
Value
279.2 15.700
279.1 16.000
279.2 16.600
279.2 16.600
279.2 16.900
279.2 17.000
Method Reported
Value
200.7A 17.400
other 17.500
279.2 18.000
279.2 18.000
279.2 18.000
279.2 18.000
Method Reported
Value
279.2 18.000
279.2 18.200
279.1 18.300
200.7A 18.500
200.7A 18.500
279.2 18.600
Method Reported
Value
279.2 18.600
279.2 18.600
279.2 18.600
279.2 18.900
279.2 19.000
279.2 19.100
Method Reported
Value
279.2 19.900
other 20.700
279.1 20.700
279.2 21.900
279.2 24.700

Water Study: 25a
True Value: 36.0 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
279.2 3.700
279.2 28.000
279.2 31.000
279.1 31.200
279.2 32.000
Method Reported
Value
279.2 33.000
279.2 33.000
279.2 33.900
279.2 34.700
279.2 34.800
Method Reported
Value
279.2 34.900
279.2 35.000
279.2 35.000
279.2 35.000
279.2 35.200
Method Reported
Value
279.1 36.000
279.2 36.000
279.2 36.000
279.1 36.100
279.2 36.500
Method Reported
Value
279.2 36.600
279.2 36.900
279.2 37.000
279.2 37.000
other 37.800
Method Reported
Value
279.2 41.600




Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-159
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 25b
True Value: 3.00 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
279.2 2.000
279.2 2.040
279.2 2.400
other 2.550
Method Reported
Value
279.2 2.590
279.2 2.780
279.2 2.800
279.2 2.900
Method Reported
Value
279.2 3.000
279.2 3.000
279.2 3.000
279.2 3.020
Method Reported
Value
279.2 3.100
279.1 3.210
279.2 3.280
279.2 3.320
Method Reported
Value
279.2 3.470
279.2 3.600
279.2 3.900
279.2 4.000
Method Reported
Value
279.2 37.000



Water Study: 26
True Value: 4.00 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
279.2 1.900
279.2 1.960
279.2 2.670
279.2 3.040
279.2 3.200
279.2 3.200
279.2 3.250
Method Reported
Value
279.2 3.300
279.2 3.450
279.2 3.470
279.2 3.480
279.2 3.500
279.2 3.500
279.2 3.510
Method Reported
Value
279.2 3.600
279.2 3.620
279.2 3.670
279.2 3.840
279.2 3.950
279.2 4.000
279.2 4.110
Method Reported
Value
279.2 4.200
200.7A 4.200
279.2 4.200
279.2 4.240
279.2 4.250
279.2 4.260
279.2 4.370
Method Reported
Value
279.2 4.390
200.7A 4.400
other 4.500
279.2 4.500
279.2 4.560
200.7A 4.610
279.2 5.040
Method Reported
Value
279.2 6.300
279.2 7.300





Water Study: 27
True Value: 26.9 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
279.2 7.200
279.2 13.500
other 20.600
279.2 24.700
Method Reported
Value
279.2 24.900
279.2 25.200
279.2 25.300
279.2 25.300
Method Reported
Value
279.2 25.700
279.2 25.800
279.2 25.900
279.2 26.200
Method Reported
Value
279.2 27.000
279.2 27.000
279.2 27.200
279.2 27.500
Method Reported
Value
279.2 27.600
279.2 28.200
other 28.800
279.2 29.000
Method Reported
Value
279.2 29.000
279.2 29.000
279.2 32.100

Water Study: 29
True Value: 9.74 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
279.2 5.400
279.2 7.100
other 7.300
279.2 8.300
Method Reported
Value
279.2 8.700
279.2 8.820
279.2 9.100
other 9.380
Method Reported
Value
279.2 9.500
279.2 9.570
279.2 9.600
other 9.600
Method Reported
Value
279.2 9.700
279.2 9.700
279.2 9.900
200.9 9.900
Method Reported
Value
279.2 10.200
279.2 10.200
279.2 10.300
279.2 10.700
Method Reported
Value
279.2 11.000



Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-160
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 30
True Value: 5.30 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
200.7 4.100
279.2 4.580
200.9 4.590
279.2 4.640
279.2 4.650
200.9 4.780
279.2 4.830
279.2 4.880
279.2 4.920
Method Reported
Value
279.2 4.980
200.9 4.980
279.2 5.000
279.2 5.010
279.2 5.070
279.2 5.070
200.9 5.080
279.2 5.100
279.2 5.110
Method Reported
Value
279.2 5.150
279.2 5.200
279.2 5.200
279.2 5.200
279.2 5.200
279.2 5.230
279.2 5.260
279.2 5.300
200.7 5.300
Method Reported
Value
279.2 5.320
279.2 5.350
279.2 5.370
279.2 5.400
279.2 5.458
279.2 5.500
279.2 5.500
279.2 5.500
200.9 5.500
Method Reported
Value
279.2 5.600
279.2 5.600
200.9 5.750
279.2 5.800
279.2 5.820
200.9 5.900
200.9 6.200
200.9 6.300
279.2 7.000
Method Reported
Value
279.2 7.000
279.2 7.140
279.2 7.500






Water Study: 31
True Value: 1.48 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
279.2 1.010
279.2 1.050
279.2 1.100
279.2 1.200
279.2 1.280
Method Reported
Value
279.2 1.340
200.9 1.400
279.2 1.400
200.9 1.400
279.2 1.450
Method Reported
Value
279.2 1.480
279.2 1.500
200.9 1.530
279.2 1.590
279.2 1.600
Method Reported
Value
200.9 1.600
200.9 1.600
279.2 1.635
200.9 1.650
200.9 1.690
Method Reported
Value
279.2 1.700
279.2 1.760
other 2.000
200.9 2.040
200.9 2.100
Method Reported
Value
279.2 2.300
200.9 3.000



Water Study: 32
True Value: 2.56 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
200.9 1.000
200.9 1.260
200.9 1.700
200.8 1.750
200.9 1.780
279.2 1.800
279.2 1.900
279.2 1.900
200.8 1.960
279.2 2.060
Method Reported
Value
200.9 2.100
279.2 2.200
279.2 2.230
200.9 2.300
279.2 2.300
279.2 2.300
279.2 2.310
279.2 2.310
279.2 2.340
279.2 2.350
Method Reported
Value
279.2 2.350
279.2 2.370
279.2 2.400
279.2 2.400
279.2 2.400
279.2 2.400
279.2 2.410
279.2 2.430
279.2 2.450
279.2 2.460
Method Reported
Value
200.9 2.460
279.2 2.460
200.9 2.460
200.9 2.470
200.9 2.470
200.8 2.480
279.2 2.540
279.2 2.550
200.9 2.600
279.2 2.600
Method Reported
Value
279.2 2.600
279.2 2.628
279.2 2.650
200.9 2.650
200.9 2.700
200.9 2.700
200.9 2.720
200.9 2.780
200.9 2.880
200.9 2.900
Method Reported
Value
279.2 2.960
279.2 2.978
200.9 2.980
200.9 3.000
200.9 3.000
279.2 3.100
other 3.100
200.9 3.300
279.2 4.400
279.2 5.000
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-161
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 33
True Value: 9.56 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
3113 5.230
279.2 6.000
3113 6.400
279.2 6.880
279.2 7.400
279.2 7.580
Method Reported
Value
279.2 7.660
279.2 8.400
279.2 8.700
279.2 8.940
other 8.980
200.9 9.000
Method Reported
Value
200.9 9.000
200.9 9.000
279.2 9.100
279.2 9.160
200.9 9.500
279.2 9.510
Method Reported
Value
279.2 9.530
279.2 9.538
279.2 9.610
279.2 9.700
279.2 10.000
279.2 10.000
Method Reported
Value
279.2 10.000
200.9 10.300
279.2 10.300
200.9 10.300
279.2 10.400
200.9 10.700
Method Reported
Value
279.2 10.900
200.8 10.900




Water Study: 34
True Value: 6. 19 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
200.9 3.800
279.2 4.580
200.8 4.760
3113 4.800
279.2 4.860
279.2 4.890
279.2 5.130
279.2 5.300
200.9 5.300
279.2 5.300
Method Reported
Value
200.9 5.330
200.9 5.470
279.2 5.520
200.9 5.600
279.2 5.650
279.2 5.700
200.9 5.700
200.9 5.780
279.2 5.800
279.2 5.860
Method Reported
Value
200.9 5.940
279.2 6.000
279.2 6.000
200.9 6.000
200.9 6.000
200.8 6.060
279.2 6.100
200.8 6.117
279.2 6.160
279.2 6.170
Method Reported
Value
200.9 6.200
279.2 6.200
279.2 6.240
279.2 6.260
279.2 6.270
279.2 6.300
279.2 6.320
279.2 6.340
200.9 6.400
200.9 6.440
Method Reported
Value
200.9 6.500
279.2 6.500
279.2 6.500
279.2 6.520
200.9 6.610
200.8 6.620
279.2 6.630
200.9 6.640
200.9 6.680
other 6.700
Method Reported
Value
200.9 6.700
200.9 6.760
279.2 6.800
279.2 6.840
279.2 7.100
200.9 7.340
200.9 8.000
200.8 9.950


Water Study: 35
True Value: 8.00 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
200.9 5.200
279.2 5.430
other 5.760
3113 6.000
200.9 6.000
279.2 6.020
200.9 6.300
Method Reported
Value
279.2 7.210
200.9 7.300
200.9 7.390
200.9 7.400
other 7.400
279.2 7.500
200.9 7.600
Method Reported
Value
200.8 7.600
200.8 7.600
279.2 7.600
200.8 7.670
3113 7.770
279.2 7.800
200.9 7.800
Method Reported
Value
279.2 7.900
200.9 7.900
200.9 7.920
279.2 7.950
279.2 8.030
279.2 8.100
200.9 8.120
Method Reported
Value
279.2 8.130
200.9 8.190
200.9 8.200
200.9 8.230
200.8 8.250
279.2 8.500
279.2 8.600
Method Reported
Value
279.2 8.780
279.2 8.810
279.2 9.000
279.2 9.100
200.9 10.100
200.9 10.700

Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-162
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 36
True Value: 4.50 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
200.9 3.440
3113 3.600
200.9 3.700
200.9 4.000
200.8 4.040
other 4.100
200.9 4.200
279.2 4.200
200.9 4.230
200.8 4.280
200.8 4.290
Method Reported
Value
200.9 4.310
279.2 4.330
200.9 4.400
200.9 4.430
200.9 4.440
200.9 4.450
279.2 4.460
200.9 4.500
200.9 4.550
other 4.560
other 4.580
Method Reported
Value
200.9 4.580
200.8 4.580
200.9 4.590
200.9 4.600
other 4.600
other 4.600
200.9 4.650
200.9 4.670
other 4.680
200.8 4.700
200.9 4.720
Method Reported
Value
200.8 4.730
200.9 4.740
200.9 4.740
200.8 4.750
200.8 4.770
other 4.780
200.9 4.800
200.9 4.800
200.9 4.810
200.9 4.870
200.9 4.900
Method Reported
Value
200.9 4.940
other 4.980
200.9 5.000
200.9 5.000
200.8 5.000
200.9 5.000
200.8 5.120
279.2 5.120
200.9 5.150
other 5.200
200.9 5.250
Method Reported
Value
200.9 5.300
200.9 5.300
200.9 5.320
200.8 5.420
200.9 5.620
200.9 33.100





Water Study: 37
True Value: 2.38 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
200.9 0.816
3113 1.000
200.9 1.120
279.2 1.200
200.9 1.900
200.9 1.920
200.9 2.000
200.9 2.000
Method Reported
Value
200.9 2.000
other 2.100
200.9 2.130
200.9 2.200
200.9 2.200
200.9 2.200
200.9 2.220
200.9 2.230
Method Reported
Value
200.9 2.260
200.9 2.270
200.9 2.280
200.9 2.290
200.9 2.300
200.9 2.300
200.9 2.350
200.9 2.390
Method Reported
Value
200.9 2.440
200.8 2.440
200.9 2.450
200.8 2.460
200.9 2.470
200.9 2.500
200.8 2.500
200.9 2.540
Method Reported
Value
200.9 2.540
200.9 2.550
200.8 2.560
200.8 2.570
200.8 2.570
200.9 2.600
200.8 2.600
200.9 2.670
Method Reported
Value
200.9 2.690
200.9 2.810
200.9 2.930





Water Study: 38
True Value: 8.91 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
200.9 1.060
200.9 3.370
200.9 4.350
200.9 6.200
200.9 6.600
200.9 7.000
other 7.190
200.9 7.490
200.9 7.550
200.9 7.630
Method Reported
Value
200.9 7.800
200.9 7.890
200.9 7.920
200.9 8.080
200.9 8.100
200.8 8.100
200.8 8.110
200.9 8.130
200.9 8.200
other 8.250
Method Reported
Value
200.9 8.260
200.8 8.300
200.9 8.300
200.8 8.300
200.8 8.350
200.9 8.460
200.9 8.490
200.9 8.490
200.9 8.520
200.9 8.530
Method Reported
Value
200.8 8.580
other 8.600
200.9 8.650
200.9 8.650
200.9 8.650
200.8 8.700
200.8 8.700
other 8.720
200.9 8.790
200.8 8.880
Method Reported
Value
200.9 8.900
200.8 8.900
200.9 8.990
200.9 9.000
200.9 9.000
200.8 9.000
200.8 9.010
200.8 9.050
200.9 9.080
200.9 9.100
Method Reported
Value
200.8 9.110
200.8 9.130
200.8 9.210
200.9 9.520
200.9 9.570
200.9 9.600
other 9.660
200.9 10.000
279.2 10.100

Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-163
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 39
True Value: 5.60 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
200.9 4.060
200.9 4.690
200.9 4.850
200.9 4.900
200.9 4.900
200.9 5.000
200.9 5.120
200.9 5.160
Method Reported
Value
200.9 5.220
200.9 5.260
200.9 5.280
200.9 5.300
200.9 5.320
200.8 5.320
200.9 5.350
200.9 5.390
Method Reported
Value
200.9 5.400
200.9 5.400
200.8 5.400
200.9 5.440
200.9 5.440
200.8 5.470
200.9 5.500
200.9 5.560
Method Reported
Value
200.9 5.560
200.9 5.580
200.9 5.590
200.9 5.600
200.9 5.680
200.9 5.800
200.9 5.800
200.8 5.800
Method Reported
Value
200.8 5.900
200.8 5.900
200.9 5.930
200.9 5.940
other 5.970
200.9 5.980
200.9 6.000
200.8 6.050
Method Reported
Value
200.9 6.100
other 6.100
200.9 6.180
200.9 6.500
200.9 6.950
200.9 7.000
200.8 7.600

Water Study: 40
True Value: 10.0 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
200.9 7.170
200.9 9.040
200.9 9.300
200.9 9.370
200.9 9.380
200.9 9.420
200.9 9.490
200.8 9.500
other 9.540
200.8 9.620
Method Reported
Value
200.9 9.650
200.9 9.670
200.8 9.760
200.8 9.770
200.9 9.800
200.9 9.800
200.9 9.900
200.9 9.920
200.9 9.930
200.9 9.930
Method Reported
Value
200.8 9.940
200.8 9.950
200.8 9.960
200.8 9.980
200.9 10.000
200.8 10.000
200.9 10.200
other 10.200
200.8 10.200
200.8 10.280
Method Reported
Value
200.8 10.300
200.9 10.400
200.9 10.400
200.9 10.400
200.8 10.400
200.8 10.500
279.2 10.500
200.9 10.600
other 10.600
200.9 10.600
Method Reported
Value
200.8 10.600
200.9 10.600
200.9 10.700
200.9 10.700
200.8 10.700
200.9 10.800
200.8 10.800
200.9 10.800
200.9 10.900
other 10.900
Method Reported
Value
other 10.900
200.9 11.000
200.9 11.000
200.8 11.000
200.9 11.000
200.9 11.300
200.9 11.600
200.9 12.300
other 18.100

Water Study: 41
True Value: 3.50 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
200.9 2.700
200.9 2.720
200.8 2.820
200.9 2.900
200.9 2.930
200.8 2.960
200.8 2.990
200.9 3.000
Method Reported
Value
200.9 3.000
200.9 3.000
200.9 3.070
200.9 3.070
200.9 3.090
200.9 3.100
200.8 3.120
200.9 3.140
Method Reported
Value
200.8 3.160
279.2 3.170
200.9 3.180
200.9 3.200
200.9 3.230
200.9 3.240
200.8 3.250
200.8 3.250
Method Reported
Value
200.9 3.260
200.9 3.270
200.9 3.280
200.9 3.300
200.9 3.300
200.8 3.310
200.8 3.310
200.8 3.340
Method Reported
Value
200.9 3.340
200.9 3.350
200.8 3.410
200.9 3.440
200.9 3.470
200.9 3.500
200.9 3.500
200.9 3.500
Method Reported
Value
other 3.590
200.8 3.610
200.9 5.800
other 408.000




Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-164
Final - March 2003

-------
 Toluene

 Water Study: 29
 True Value: 11.5 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 7.640
524.2 9.820
524.2 10.200
524.1 10.400
524.2 10.500
524.2 10.600
Method Reported
Value
502.2 10.680
502.2 10.900
524.2 10.900
502.2 11.000
502.2 11.100
524.2 11.160
Method Reported
Value
502.2 11.400
524.2 11.400
502.2 11.400
502.2 11.400
other 11.400
502.2 11.400
Method Reported
Value
502.2 11.400
524.2 11.400
524.2 11.500
524.2 11.600
other 11.640
502.2 11.740
Method Reported
Value
502.2 12.100
524.1 12.100
502.2 12.300
502.2 12.500
other 12.600
502.2 12.640
Method Reported
Value
524.2 12.800
524.2 13.200
524.2 13.400
502.2 13.500
524.2 14.700

Water Study: 30
True Value: 8.02 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 6.190
502.2 6.420
524.2 6.430
524.2 6.500
502.2 7.030
524.2 7.150
524.2 7.210
other 7.386
524.2 7.400
502.2 7.401
Method Reported
Value
502.2 7.450
524.2 7.500
524.2 7.500
502.2 7.540
524.2 7.540
502.2 7.550
524.2 7.630
502.2 7.630
502.2 7.630
524.1 7.680
Method Reported
Value
524.2 7.700
524.2 7.730
524.2 7.740
other 7.760
other 7.780
524.2 7.780
502.2 7.860
503.1 7.890
502.2 7.930
502.2 7.960
Method Reported
Value
524.2 8.000
502.2 8.010
502.2 8.010
524.2 8.020
524.1 8.070
502.2 8.110
502.2 8.200
524.2 8.200
502.2 8.200
502.2 8.250
Method Reported
Value
524.1 8.300
524.2 8.300
502.2 8.320
502.2 8.330
524.2 8.330
524.2 8.400
other 8.420
524.2 8.420
503.1 8.440
502.2 8.510
Method Reported
Value
502.2 8.540
524.2 8.570
524.2 8.600
524.2 8.640
524.2 8.670
502.2 8.800
502.2 9.050
524.2 9.100
other 23.800

Water Study: 31
True Value: 15.3 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 12.330
502.2 12.600
other 13.200
524.2 13.500
524.2 13.700
503.1 14.000
Method Reported
Value
524.2 14.100
524.2 14.200
502.2 14.200
524.2 14.200
524.1 14.300
524.2 14.300
Method Reported
Value
502.2 14.400
524.2 14.400
524.2 14.400
502.2 14.400
503.1 14.600
502.2 14.700
Method Reported
Value
524.2 14.800
502.2 14.900
other 15.000
502.1 15.000
524.2 15.060
524.2 15.200
Method Reported
Value
524.2 15.200
502.2 15.400
502.2 15.700
502.2 15.700
524.2 15.800
524.2 15.920
Method Reported
Value
524.2 16.000
502.2 16.000
502.2 16.100
502.2 16.500
502.2 16.600

Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-165
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 32
True Value: 6.54 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 5.000
503.1 5.340
502.2 5.410
524.2 5.500
524.2 5.610
502.2 5.620
524.2 5.710
524.2 5.800
502.2 5.820
502.2 5.830
502.2 5.830
Method Reported
Value
502.2 5.840
524.2 5.900
other 5.900
524.2 5.910
524.2 5.970
502.2 6.010
502.2 6.010
other 6.020
524.2 6.030
other 6.060
524.2 6.130
Method Reported
Value
502.2 6.160
502.2 6.170
524.2 6.190
503.1 6.190
524.2 6.200
524.2 6.220
502.2 6.230
other 6.300
502.2 6.300
502.2 6.320
502.2 6.360
Method Reported
Value
524.2 6.380
502.2 6.400
524.2 6.420
524.2 6.440
524.2 6.460
524.2 6.500
524.2 6.500
524.2 6.530
524.2 6.600
524.1 6.650
524.2 6.670
Method Reported
Value
524.2 6.680
524.2 6.730
524.2 6.730
524.2 6.750
502.2 6.800
502.2 6.800
524.2 6.840
524.2 6.860
502.2 6.890
524.2 6.890
502.2 6.930
Method Reported
Value
502.2 7.000
502.2 7.070
524.2 7.300
502.2 7.370
524.2 7.530
502.2 7.760
524.2 8.000
other 8.700



Water Study: 33
True Value: 12.3 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 7.170
other 9.890
524.2 10.930
524.2 10.940
524.2 11.000
502.2 11.010
Method Reported
Value
502.2 11.100
524.2 11.300
524.2 11.500
524.2 11.600
524.2 11.800
502.2 11.800
Method Reported
Value
other 11.900
524.2 12.000
502.2 12.100
502.2 12.200
502.2 12.200
502.1 12.300
Method Reported
Value
502.2 12.300
502.2 12.300
524.2 12.300
502.2 12.500
502.2 12.500
502.2 12.600
Method Reported
Value
524.2 12.800
524.2 12.900
502.2 13.000
502.2 13.160
524.2 13.600
524.2 13.800
Method Reported
Value
502.1 14.100
502.2 15.200
other 15.200



Water Study: 34
True Value: 15.6 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 10.100
524.2 12.700
524.2 12.800
502.2 13.300
524.2 13.900
524.2 14.000
524.2 14.000
502.2 14.100
other 14.200
524.2 14.500
Method Reported
Value
502.2 14.500
524.2 14.600
502.2 14.700
524.2 14.800
502.2 14.900
502.2 14.900
524.2 14.900
524.2 14.900
524.2 14.900
524.2 15.000
Method Reported
Value
other 15.100
502.2 15.120
502.2 15.200
524.2 15.300
524.2 15.310
524.2 15.350
502.2 15.400
502.2 15.400
524.2 15.400
524.2 15.500
Method Reported
Value
502.2 15.600
524.2 15.600
524.2 15.650
502.2 15.700
502.2 15.700
502.2 15.800
524.2 15.800
502.2 15.800
524.2 15.800
502.2 15.800
Method Reported
Value
524.2 15.900
502.2 15.900
524.2 15.900
524.2 16.000
502.2 16.000
524.2 16.000
502.2 16.000
502.2 16.080
524.2 16.100
524.2 16.200
Method Reported
Value
503.1 16.200
524.2 16.300
502.2 16.400
524.2 16.400
502.2 16.500
524.2 16.500
524.2 16.700
502.2 16.800
502.2 17.200
other 17.400
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-166
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 35
True Value: 9.92 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 8.160
502.2 8.660
524.2 8.940
524.2 8.950
524.2 9.090
502.2 9.120
Method Reported
Value
524.2 9.150
524.2 9.190
524.2 9.300
524.2 9.300
524.2 9.500
502.2 9.580
Method Reported
Value
502.2 9.580
524.2 9.590
502.2 9.600
other 9.622
524.2 9.660
524.2 9.750
Method Reported
Value
502.2 9.810
502.2 9.840
524.2 9.960
524.2 10.000
502.2 10.090
502.2 10.090
Method Reported
Value
524.2 10.100
524.2 10.100
524.2 10.200
other 10.300
524.2 10.410
502.2 10.500
Method Reported
Value
524.2 10.500
524.2 10.800
524.2 11.200
502.2 11.500
502.2 12.700

Water Study: 36
True Value: 13.2 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 11.200
502.2 11.400
502.2 11.600
502.2 11.900
524.2 12.000
524.2 12.040
502.2 12.200
other 12.300
502.2 12.300
524.2 12.350
Method Reported
Value
502.2 12.500
524.2 12.600
524.2 12.700
502.2 12.800
502.2 12.800
524.2 12.850
524.2 12.900
524.2 12.900
502.2 13.000
524.2 13.000
Method Reported
Value
524.2 13.100
502.2 13.200
502.2 13.200
524.2 13.200
502.2 13.240
524.2 13.300
other 13.300
502.2 13.300
524.2 13.300
524.2 13.300
Method Reported
Value
524.2 13.300
524.2 13.300
502.2 13.400
502.2 13.400
502.2 13.400
524.2 13.490
524.2 13.500
524.2 13.600
524.2 13.700
524.2 13.700
Method Reported
Value
524.2 13.700
524.2 13.700
502.2 13.700
502.2 13.900
other 14.000
524.2 14.000
502.2 14.000
524.2 14.100
502.2 14.200
other 14.200
Method Reported
Value
524.2 14.300
524.2 14.600
502.2 14.700
524.2 15.050
524.2 15.100
524.2 15.150
524.2 15.200
524.2 15.300
524.2 16.500
502.2 16.600
Water Study: 37
True Value: 5.70 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 4.750
502.2 5.050
524.2 5.080
502.2 5.100
502.2 5.160
502.2 5.160
524.2 5.190
502.2 5.200
Method Reported
Value
524.2 5.230
524.2 5.230
524.2 5.240
524.2 5.240
502.2 5.270
524.2 5.340
502.2 5.380
524.2 5.390
Method Reported
Value
524.2 5.400
524.2 5.400
524.2 5.450
524.2 5.480
524.2 5.500
502.2 5.510
502.2 5.530
524.2 5.580
Method Reported
Value
502.2 5.620
524.2 5.620
524.2 5.670
502.2 5.670
524.2 5.680
other 5.700
502.2 5.780
524.2 5.830
Method Reported
Value
524.2 5.840
502.2 5.870
524.2 5.900
502.2 5.910
524.2 5.980
502.2 6.010
524.2 6.060
other 6.100
Method Reported
Value
524.2 6.120
502.2 6.200
other 6.360
524.2 6.460
502.2 6.540
524.2 7.050
524.2 7.450
524.2 7.600
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-167
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 38
True Value: 22.9 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 14.000
524.2 14.700
502.2 14.800
524.2 14.900
524.2 15.000
524.2 15.000
524.2 15.100
502.2 15.200
524.2 15.400
524.2 15.400
Method Reported
Value
524.2 15.500
524.2 15.600
502.2 15.700
other 15.800
524.2 15.800
524.2 15.800
524.2 15.900
524.2 16.000
502.2 16.030
524.2 16.100
Method Reported
Value
502.2 16.200
524.2 16.200
524.2 16.300
other 16.300
502.2 16.300
524.2 16.340
502.2 16.400
524.2 16.400
524.2 16.500
502.2 16.600
Method Reported
Value
other 16.700
524.2 16.700
502.2 16.700
502.2 16.800
524.2 16.800
524.2 16.800
524.2 16.800
524.2 16.900
524.2 17.000
524.2 17.100
Method Reported
Value
502.2 17.100
502.2 17.300
524.2 17.300
502.2 17.400
502.2 17.600
524.2 17.600
502.2 17.700
524.2 17.700
524.2 17.800
524.2 17.800
Method Reported
Value
502.2 17.800
502.2 18.000
524.2 18.200
524.2 18.300
502.2 20.600
524.2 21.100




Water Study: 39
True Value: 7.31 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 5.520
524.2 6.190
524.2 6.270
524.2 6.330
502.2 6.400
524.2 6.740
502.2 6.790
524.2 6.830
Method Reported
Value
502.2 6.860
524.2 6.860
524.2 6.950
other 7.050
524.2 7.050
502.2 7.100
502.2 7.140
502.2 7.150
Method Reported
Value
524.2 7.150
524.2 7.190
524.2 7.270
502.2 7.290
524.2 7.300
524.2 7.300
502.2 7.310
502.2 7.340
Method Reported
Value
524.2 7.360
524.2 7.400
524.2 7.430
524.2 7.500
524.2 7.540
502.2 7.590
524.2 7.600
524.2 7.600
Method Reported
Value
524.2 7.610
502.2 7.700
524.2 7.950
524.2 8.000
502.2 8.060
502.2 8.090
524.2 8.290
524.2 8.300
Method Reported
Value
524.2 8.550
524.2 8.920
524.2 17.390





Water Study: 40
True Value: 14.6 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 5.800
502.2 11.800
524.2 12.000
524.2 12.300
524.2 12.890
524.2 12.900
524.2 13.000
524.2 13.000
524.2 13.100
524.2 13.200
Method Reported
Value
other 13.300
524.2 13.400
524.2 13.500
524.2 13.600
524.2 13.600
524.2 13.700
524.2 13.800
502.2 13.800
other 14.100
524.2 14.100
Method Reported
Value
524.2 14.100
524.2 14.100
524.2 14.200
524.2 14.300
502.2 14.300
524.2 14.300
502.2 14.300
524.2 14.400
524.2 14.400
524.2 14.500
Method Reported
Value
502.2 14.500
other 14.500
524.2 14.600
524.2 14.600
502.2 14.600
524.2 14.600
502.2 14.700
524 14.700
524.2 14.800
524.2 14.800
Method Reported
Value
502.2 14.900
524.2 14.900
524.2 14.900
524.2 14.900
502.2 15.000
524.2 15.000
502.2 15.000
502.2 15.000
502.2 15.100
524.2 15.100
Method Reported
Value
524.2 15.200
524.2 15.300
502.2 15.500
502.2 15.700
524.2 15.900
502.2 16.000
524.2 17.400
524.2 17.700


Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-168
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 41
True Value: 18.7 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 15.300
524.2 16.400
524.2 16.500
502.2 16.700
524.2 16.700
502.2 17.100
524.2 17.200
Method Reported
Value
524.2 17.300
524.2 17.500
524.2 17.540
524.2 17.600
524.2 17.600
524.2 17.600
502.2 17.600
Method Reported
Value
524.2 17.900
502.2 18.000
502.2 18.100
524.2 18.200
524.2 18.200
other 18.300
524.2 18.300
Method Reported
Value
502.2 18.500
524.2 18.600
502.2 18.700
524.2 18.700
502.2 18.700
524.2 18.700
502.2 18.700
Method Reported
Value
524.2 18.800
524.2 18.900
524.2 18.900
524.2 19.000
524.2 19.130
524.2 19.200
524.2 19.300
Method Reported
Value
other 19.400
524.2 19.600
502.2 19.700
502.2 19.800
502.2 20.900
524.2 22.500
524.2 23.000
Toxaphene
Water Study: 24a
True Value: 7.58 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
other 1.800
p. 1 2.340
p. 1 2.390
p. 1 4.160
p. 1 4.360
p. 1 5.880
D3086-79 5.970
other 6.000
509A 6.010
SPE-500 6.098
Method Reported
Value
p. 1 6.100
P. 24 6.110
p. 1 6.110
p. 1 6.440
p. 1 6.510
p. 1 6.658
509A 6.710
p. 1 6.800
p. 1 6.860
p. 1 6.930
Method Reported
Value
other 6.970
other 7.010
p. 1 7.100
p. 1 7.130
SPE-500 7.130
p. 1 7.166
p. 1 7.180
other 7.200
509A 7.220
SPE-500 7.264
Method Reported
Value
p. 1 7.270
other 7.326
SPE-500 7.400
p. 1 7.480
p. 1 7.490
p. 1 7.580
p. 1 7.600
p. 1 7.680
p. 1 7.680
p. 1 7.700
Method Reported
Value
other 7.700
p. 1 7.810
p. 1 7.820
other 7.840
p. 1 8.000
other 8.000
p. 1 8.000
other 8.180
p. 1 8.320
other 8.500
Method Reported
Value
D3086-79 8.500
p. 1 8.510
p. 1 8.550
p. 1 8.600
other 8.945
509A 9.420
other 9.500
p. 1 10.600
509A 10.800
p. 1 18.200
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-169
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 24b
True Value: 2.33 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
p. 1 0.213
509A 1.530
D3086-79 1.600
SPE-500 1.780
p. 1 1.800
p. 1 1.880
p. 1 1.920
p. 1 2.000
other 2.010
p. 1 2.020
Method Reported
Value
509A 2.040
SPE-500 2.080
p. 1 2.090
p. 1 2.110
p. 1 2.110
p. 1 2.140
p. 1 2.150
p. 1 2.170
p. 1 2.240
509A 2.250
Method Reported
Value
p. 1 2.260
p. 1 2.280
other 2.300
other 2.300
p. 1 2.300
p. 1 2.320
other 2.320
other 2.379
p. 1 2.400
SPE-500 2.411
Method Reported
Value
p. 1 2.460
p. 1 2.460
p. 1 2.500
p. 1 2.500
other 2.500
D3086- 2.580
p. 1 2.600
SPE-500 2.600
other 2.610
p. 1 2.610
Method Reported
Value
p. 1 2.630
509A 2.710
p. 1 2.720
other 2.730
p. 1 2.730
other 2.759
P. 24 2.800
p. 1 2.820
other 2.880
other 2.900
Method Reported
Value
p. 1 3.020
p. 1 3.090
other 3.180
p. 1 3.224
p. 1 3.300
509A 3.520
other 5.700
p. 1 6.230
p. 1 7.020

Water Study: 25a
True Value: 4.22 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
509A 0.310
p. 1 1.740
p. 1 2.400
p. 1 2.690
p. 1 3.500
p. 1 3.600
Method Reported
Value
P. 24 3.610
p. 1 3.610
508 3.670
other 3.840
other 3.900
p. 1 3.940
Method Reported
Value
509A 3.960
505 3.990
509A 4.010
509A 4.040
SPE-500 4.040
P. 24 4.050
Method Reported
Value
other 4.120
p. 1 4.150
509A 4.160
p. 1 4.170
509A 4.200
509A 4.200
Method Reported
Value
p. 1 4.200
p. 1 4.260
other 4.300
other 4.330
p. 1 4.340
p. 1 4.440
Method Reported
Value
p. 1 4.500
p. 1 4.790
p. 1 4.891
p. 1 5.220
other 5.660

Water Study: 25b
True Value: 1.41 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
509A 0.130
other 0.922
p. 1 1.020
p. 1 1.040
509A 1.070
p. 1 1.110
Method Reported
Value
p. 1 1.130
other 1.190
p. 1 1.220
509A 1.240
other 1.260
p. 1 1.260
Method Reported
Value
other 1.280
p. 1 1.300
505 1.320
508 1.320
P. 24 1.350
p. 1 1.370
Method Reported
Value
p. 1 1.390
p. 1 1.423
509A 1.430
p. 1 1.435
509A 1.440
p. 1 1.520
Method Reported
Value
p. 1 1.540
p. 1 1.550
509A 1.560
other 1.600
p. 1 1.620
SPE-500 1.635
Method Reported
Value
509A 1.660
P. 24 1.720
p. 1 1.940
other 1.940
p. 1 1.980

Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-170
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 26a
True Value: 10.8 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
p. 1 6.950
p. 1 8.180
p. 1 8.210
p. 1 8.390
p. 1 8.680
p. 1 8.700
other 8.710
509A 8.750
p. 1 8.880
509A 8.890
Method Reported
Value
p. 1 8.910
other 8.980
other 9.010
other 9.220
p. 1 9.470
SPE-500 9.551
p. 1 9.580
P. 24 9.600
SPE-500 9.660
509A 9.700
Method Reported
Value
p. 1 9.865
other 9.980
other 10.000
p. 1 10.100
other 10.100
p. 1 10.200
other 10.300
p. 1 10.300
p. 1 10.400
509A 10.400
Method Reported
Value
p. 1 10.500
p. 1 10.600
p. 1 10.600
508 10.660
p. 1 10.800
p. 1 10.900
509A 10.900
other 10.900
SPE-500 10.940
p. 1 11.000
Method Reported
Value
other 11.100
p. 1 11.100
509A 11.200
525.1 11.240
p. 1 11.900
p. 1 12.100
SPE-500 12.200
other 12.300
505 12.700
other 13.000
Method Reported
Value
p. 1 13.100
509A 13.100
p. 1 13.400
p. 1 13.590
p. 1 15.100
p. 1 15.300
p. 1 16.500
p. 1 17.400


Water Study: 26b
True Value: 3.68 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
other 2.340
509A 2.360
other 2.490
p. 1 2.540
other 2.720
p. 1 2.730
p. 1 2.770
other 2.800
p. 1 2.900
SPE-500 2.920
Method Reported
Value
509A 2.930
other 2.960
509A 2.960
p. 1 3.010
p. 1 3.110
p. 1 3.170
other 3.180
p. 1 3.230
p. 1 3.270
p. 1 3.280
Method Reported
Value
p. 1 3.350
p. 1 3.400
other 3.430
other 3.480
other 3.490
SPE-500 3.507
p. 1 3.520
p. 1 3.560
p. 1 3.590
509A 3.610
Method Reported
Value
p. 1 3.620
p. 1 3.637
509A 3.650
SPE-500 3.670
p. 1 3.680
509A 3.690
SPE-500 3.700
other 3.780
509A 3.790
p. 1 3.800
Method Reported
Value
p. 1 3.820
p. 1 3.820
other 3.820
p. 1 3.850
508 3.860
505 3.893
p. 1 3.990
525.1 4.018
p. 1 4.030
p. 1 4.280
Method Reported
Value
other 4.350
p. 1 4.619
P. 24 4.750
p. 1 4.770
p. 1 4.870
p. 1 5.740
p. 1 5.820
p. 1 6.740


Water Study: 27
True Value: 6.39 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
p. 1 4.240
p. 1 4.310
other 4.820
p. 1 4.950
509A 5.040
p. 1 5.050
Method Reported
Value
509A 5.160
p. 1 5.190
other 5.200
p. 1 5.210
509A 5.380
other 5.550
Method Reported
Value
P. 24 5.600
other 5.660
508 5.700
other 5.800
p. 1 5.810
p. 1 5.820
Method Reported
Value
508 5.900
p. 1 5.960
509A 5.990
p. 1 6.050
509A 6.220
508 6.240
Method Reported
Value
p. 1 6.660
p. 1 6.820
other 7.000
p. 1 7.175
p. 1 7.190
other 7.230
Method Reported
Value
505 7.850
p. 1 10.600
p. 1 10.900
p. 1 16.500


Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-171
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 29
True Value: 7.60 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
508 3.850
508 5.790
508 5.800
508 5.950
508 6.220
p. 1 6.370
Method Reported
Value
505 6.500
508 6.700
508 6.760
508 6.940
other 6.940
p. 24 6.990
Method Reported
Value
other 7.115
other 7.160
p. 1 7.170
509A 7.197
p. 1 7.300
SPE-500 7.385
Method Reported
Value
505 7.560
508 7.560
508 7.580
p. 1 7.590
505 7.650
508 7.670
Method Reported
Value
505 7.690
other 7.700
other 7.941
508 8.020
508 8.100
p. 1 8.300
Method Reported
Value
508 8.950
505 9.300
508 9.710



Water Study: 30
True Value: 2.80 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
505 0.871
508 1.490
508 1.520
508 1.590
505 1.690
p. 24 1.730
other 1.860
508 1.880
508 1.935
Method Reported
Value
508 2.090
p. 1 2.100
505 2.130
SPE-500 2.250
other 2.280
508 2.280
508 2.330
505 2.340
other 2.390
Method Reported
Value
other 2.400
508 2.420
508 2.450
508 2.450
p. 1 2.460
508 2.480
p. 1 2.490
508 2.520
p. 1 2.540
Method Reported
Value
505 2.550
505 2.550
other 2.600
505 2.630
p. 1 2.630
508 2.630
other 2.659
508 2.680
p. 1 2.700
Method Reported
Value
p. 1 2.700
other 2.720
508 2.740
508 2.740
508 2.790
508 2.810
other 2.840
508 2.940
508 2.970
Method Reported
Value
508 2.970
508 3.020
508 3.040
508 3.040
other 3.060
508 3.190
p. 1 3.200
other 3.960
505 12.600
Water Study: 31
True Value: 3.31 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
505 1.570
508 1.910
508 1.960
508 2.070
508 2.130
508 2.300
Method Reported
Value
505 2.400
508 2.750
505 2.810
508 2.830
508 2.900
505 2.930
Method Reported
Value
other 3.060
other 3.120
508 3.120
508 3.130
508 3.200
508 3.220
Method Reported
Value
p. 1 3.330
508 3.340
508 3.420
p. 1 3.440
508 3.440
508 3.490
Method Reported
Value
508 3.500
other 3.530
508 3.710
508 3.850
508 4.030
p. 1 4.100
Method Reported
Value
505 16.500





Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-172
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 32
True Value: 3.71 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
other 2.230
other 2.350
508 2.410
508 2.490
508 2.590
508 2.600
508 2.640
508 2.640
508 2.700
other 2.810
Method Reported
Value
508 2.820
525.1 2.830
SPE-500 2.920
508 2.980
505 3.010
508 3.060
508 3.120
other 3.200
508 3.230
508 3.240
Method Reported
Value
508 3.290
508 3.429
508 3.490
508 3.500
508 3.550
508 3.580
508 3.590
508 3.590
508 3.620
508 3.680
Method Reported
Value
other 3.6900
508 3.700
505 3.700
508 3.720
508 3.740
508 3.750
508 3.800
508 3.800
other 3.830
505 3.830
Method Reported
Value
SPE-500 3.900
other 3.900
505 3.956
508 3.960
508 3.970
505 3.970
505 4.000
508 4.000
505 4.180
525.1 4.270
Method Reported
Value
505 4.370
508 5.130
505 5.770
508 6.110
525.1 6.200
505 7.360




Water Study: 33
True Value: 9.23 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
508 4.960
508 5.760
508 6.840
505 7.110
508 7.120
other 7.500
Method Reported
Value
505 7.610
505 7.690
508 7.920
508 8.050
508 8.380
508 8.520
Method Reported
Value
other 8.640
508 8.690
508 8.750
508 8.780
other 8.900
508 9.000
Method Reported
Value
508 9.020
508 9.030
508 9.240
508 9.630
508 9.840
508 9.880
Method Reported
Value
508 10.000
508 10.500
505 10.800
505 10.900
508 11.300
508 11.960
Method Reported
Value
other 12.400
525.1 13.600
other 26.300



Water Study: 34
True Value: 5.37 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
525.1 2.850
505 3.290
other 3.430
505 3.520
508 3.590
508 3.830
505 4.170
525.1 4.280
508 4.340
Method Reported
Value
508 4.460
508 4.480
505 4.650
508 4.750
508 4.860
508 4.900
508 4.930
508 4.950
525.1 5.000
Method Reported
Value
508 5.070
505 5.100
508 5.140
508 5.170
508 5.210
508 5.230
other 5.280
505 5.280
505 5.330
Method Reported
Value
508 5.340
508 5.480
508 5.480
508 5.490
508 5.550
508 5.560
505 5.560
other 5.570
508 5.630
Method Reported
Value
505 5.795
508 5.800
508 5.810
508 5.960
508 6.090
508 6.150
508 6.180
508 6.230
505 6.320
Method Reported
Value
525.1 6.420
508 6.670
505 6.790
508 6.985
508 7.030
other 7.070
508 7.230
508 10.400
505 23.890
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-173
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 35
True Value: 18.3 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
508 1.810
508 11.300
508 11.400
508 13.100
508 13.300
508 13.490
Method Reported
Value
508 14.380
505 14.400
505 14.700
505 14.900
508 14.900
508 15.750
Method Reported
Value
508 16.000
505 16.200
508 16.400
525.1 16.700
505 16.800
508 17.000
Method Reported
Value
508 17.100
508 17.100
508 17.780
508 17.900
508 17.900
525.1 18.100
Method Reported
Value
505 18.200
508 19.400
508 19.800
508 20.000
508 20.400
508 21.300
Method Reported
Value
505 22.300
508 22.500
other 23.200
508 26.100


Water Study: 36
True Value: 14.7 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
508 5.570
508 8.050
508 8.900
508 9.570
505 10.180
508 10.500
other 10.700
505 10.700
508 10.800
Method Reported
Value
508 11.000
other 11.030
505 11.300
508 11.800
508 11.900
508 12.000
505 12.100
other 12.300
508 12.900
Method Reported
Value
other 13.200
other 13.250
508 13.400
508 13.400
508 13.500
508 13.600
505 13.800
508 13.800
505 13.800
Method Reported
Value
525.2 13.900
508 14.000
505 14.000
505 14.000
508 14.000
508 14.200
508 14.200
508 14.300
508 14.700
Method Reported
Value
508 14.700
508 14.800
505 14.800
505 14.800
525.2 14.900
508 15.300
525.2 15.500
508 15.600
508 15.800
Method Reported
Value
505 16.000
505 17.300
508 19.370
525.2 20.600
505 22.600
508 28.000
508 28.700


Water Study: 37
True Value: 8.81 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
505 1.470
508 4.010
525.2 4.800
505 5.630
508 6.520
508 6.700
other 6.700
508 6.740
Method Reported
Value
other 6.770
508 7.150
525.2 7.510
508 7.560
508 7.570
508 7.760
508 7.800
505 7.860
Method Reported
Value
508 8.130
505 8.210
other 8.240
505 8.300
508 8.330
508 8.560
505 8.740
508 8.800
Method Reported
Value
508 8.930
525.2 8.940
505 9.000
508 9.140
505 9.140
other 9.480
508 9.730
505 9.740
Method Reported
Value
508 9.890
508 10.050
508 10.100
508 10.110
508 10.200
505 10.300
505 10.660
505 11.000
Method Reported
Value
508 11.400
508 11.500
508 11.800
525 13.100
508 14.000
508 14.000


Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-174
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 38
True Value: 12.7 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
508 0.970
505 6.210
525.2 6.220
508 7.510
508 7.570
505 7.860
508 8.080
12 8.400
508 9.620
Method Reported
Value
508 9.700
508 10.360
505 10.400
508 10.600
505 10.600
508 10.700
other 11.160
508 11.400
508 11.400
Method Reported
Value
508 11.600
508 11.700
508 11.800
508 11.800
508 11.800
505 11.900
508 12.000
508 12.300
505 12.400
Method Reported
Value
505 12.500
508 12.500
508 12.600
508 12.900
508 12.900
508 12.900
505 12.900
505 13.100
508 13.200
Method Reported
Value
505 13.200
508 13.500
508 13.500
505 13.600
505 13.700
508 13.960
525.2 14.000
505 14.250
508 14.300
Method Reported
Value
525.2 16.200
other 16.300
508 16.600
508 18.400
508 32.300




Water Study: 39
True Value: 3.65 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
508 2.140
505 2.600
508 2.700
508 2.890
505 3.010
508 3.180
508 3.420
Method Reported
Value
508 3.540
508 3.550
508 3.580
other 3.740
508 3.810
508 3.820
525.2 3.860
Method Reported
Value
508 3.860
508 3.860
505 3.880
505 3.880
505 3.890
508 3.950
508 3.960
Method Reported
Value
508 3.990
508 4.010
508 4.030
508 4.038
508 4.070
525.2 4.120
505 4.130
Method Reported
Value
508 4.140
508 4.140
505 4.300
505 4.320
505 4.650
508 4.740
508 4.780
Method Reported
Value
525.2 4.930
508 4.960
508 5.280
525.2 5.500
525.2 5.690
508 7.300

Water Study: 40
True Value: 16.5 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
508 10.000
525.2 10.700
508 10.600
508 11.000
508 11.800
505 11.800
508 11.900
508 13.500
505 13.600
508 13.700
Method Reported
Value
other 13.700
508 13.800
508 13.900
508 14.300
505 14.310
525.2 14.400
508 14.500
508 14.600
508 14.800
525.2 15.000
Method Reported
Value
508 15.400
508 15.400
505 15.600
508 15.600
508 16.000
505 16.100
508 16.100
508 16.400
508 16.400
508 16.500
Method Reported
Value
525.2 16.500
508 16.600
508 16.600
525.2 16.700
508 16.800
508 17.000
other 17.300
508 17.300
508 17.560
505 17.600
Method Reported
Value
505 17.600
505 17.600
508 17.700
other 17.800
other 17.930
508 18.000
508 18.000
505 18.800
508 18.900
508 19.100
Method Reported
Value
508 19.200
505 19.500
508 19.600
505 20.700
other 27.400
508 29.500




Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-175
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 41
True Value: 6.90 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
525.2 2.890
other 3.460
505 4.080
505 4.520
other 4.740
505 4.880
508 4.920
Method Reported
Value
508 4.930
508 5.024
other 5.050
508 5.190
508 5.290
505 5.310
other 5.410
Method Reported
Value
508 5.520
508 5.530
508 5.550
508 5.730
525.2 5.770
508 5.850
508 6.010
Method Reported
Value
508 6.430
505 6.650
508 6.660
508 6.700
505 6.950
505 7.010
508 7.020
Method Reported
Value
505 7.090
525.2 7.190
508 7.270
525.2 7.630
508 7.850
508 7.900
508 8.070
Method Reported
Value
505 8.160
508 8.490
508 10.000
other 10.200



 1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Water Study: 24
True Value: 3.21 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.1 1.960
502.2 2.050
502.2 2.410
524.1 2.430
502.2 2.600
524.2 2.630
502.1 2.690
524.2 2.700
502.2 2.760
524.1 2.820
Method Reported
Value
524.2 2.830
524.1 2.850
524.2 2.860
502.2 2.890
524.2 2.900
other 2.900
502.2 2.915
502.1 2.920
502.2 2.960
524.2 2.990
Method Reported
Value
524.2 2.990
524.2 3.000
524.2 3.010
502.2 3.020
524.2 3.070
524.2 3.090
524.2 3.100
502.1 3.100
other 3.100
502.2 3.100
Method Reported
Value
502.2 3.130
524.2 3.150
524.1 3.150
524.2 3.200
502.2 3.210
502.2 3.210
502.2 3.220
502.2 3.300
502.1 3.300
502.2 3.300
Method Reported
Value
502.2 3.320
524.2 3.390
502.2 3.420
524.2 3.490
502.1 3.490
502.2 3.500
524.2 3.607
524.2 3.620
524.1 3.660
524.2 3.710
Method Reported
Value
502.1 3.730
502.2 3.800
502.2 3.880
other 4.000
502.2 4.100
502.2 4.100
524.2 7.040



Water Study: 25
True Value: 11.3 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.1 6.400
502.2 9.000
502.2 9.000
524.2 9.730
502.2 9.760
other 10.100
524.2 10.150
Method Reported
Value
502.2 10.400
524.1 10.500
502.2 10.500
524.2 10.600
524.2 10.630
502.2 10.700
524.2 10.800
Method Reported
Value
502.2 10.800
other 10.830
524.2 10.900
502.2 10.900
524.1 10.900
502.1 11.100
502.2 11.100
Method Reported
Value
524.2 11.100
502.2 11.110
524.1 11.300
524.2 11.360
524.2 11.400
502.1 11.600
502.2 11.800
Method Reported
Value
502.2 12.200
502.2 12.600
502.2 12.800
524.2 12.800
502.2 13.000
524.1 13.100
524.2 14.000
Method Reported
Value
other 21.900
524.2 71.600





Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-176
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 26
True Value: 13.6 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 9.160
502.2 9.620
502.2 10.000
524.2 10.700
502.2 11.100
524.2 11.200
502.2 11.570
524.1 11.800
502.2 11.800
other 11.900
Method Reported
Value
502.2 12.000
502.2 12.000
524.2 12.100
other 12.100
524.2 12.100
502.2 12.200
524.2 12.310
502.2 12.400
524.1 12.400
502.1 12.630
Method Reported
Value
524.2 12.700
524.1 12.800
524.2 13.100
524.1 13.100
502.2 13.200
524.2 13.200
524.2 13.200
524.1 13.400
502.2 13.400
502.2 13.500
Method Reported
Value
502.1 13.500
524.2 13.500
502.1 13.500
524.2 13.500
502.1 13.700
502.2 13.800
502.2 13.800
524.2 13.960
502.2 14.000
524.2 14.000
Method Reported
Value
524.2 14.000
524.2 14.080
524.2 14.100
502.2 14.100
524.2 14.200
502.2 14.300
524.2 14.300
502.1 14.400
524.2 14.700
524.2 14.800
Method Reported
Value
524.2 15.000
502.2 15.300
502.2 15.500
502.1 15.600
524.2 16.200
502.2 16.800
502.2 17.490
524.2 18.900
524.2 21.400

Water Study: 27
True Value: 7.38 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 3.140
502.2 5.300
other 5.450
502.2 5.470
524.2 5.570
502.2 5.730
524.2 6.200
Method Reported
Value
502.2 6.200
502.2 6.330
524.2 6.420
524.2 6.590
502.1 6.600
502.2 6.600
502.2 6.650
Method Reported
Value
502.2 6.730
524.2 6.880
other 6.900
502.2 6.980
524.2 7.010
524.2 7.130
502.2 7.150
Method Reported
Value
502.2 7.160
524.1 7.200
524.2 7.200
524.2 7.210
524.2 7.350
524.2 7.400
502.2 7.450
Method Reported
Value
502.2 7.460
524.2 7.620
other 8.230
524.2 8.460
502.2 8.470
502.2 8.860
502.2 9.450
Method Reported
Value
502.2 9.630
524.1 9.730





Water Study: 29
True Value: 8.80 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 6.560
524.2 6.600
502.2 7.076
524.2 7.130
other 7.300
502.2 7.650
Method Reported
Value
502.2 7.660
other 7.800
502.2 7.879
524.2 7.900
524.2 7.920
524.2 8.080
Method Reported
Value
524.2 8.110
other 8.310
502.2 8.390
502.2 8.610
524.2 8.630
524.2 8.700
Method Reported
Value
524.2 8.700
524.2 8.960
524.2 9.000
502.2 9.040
502.2 9.080
502.2 9.210
Method Reported
Value
502.2 9.270
524.1 9.320
502.2 9.330
other 9.389
524.1 9.420
502.2 9.420
Method Reported
Value
502.2 9.450
524.2 9.700
524.2 9.780
502.2 9.930
524.2 10.500

Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-177
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 30
True Value: 7.13ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 5.200
502.2 5.310
524.2 5.780
502.1 5.780
524.2 5.790
502.2 5.840
502.2 6.000
524.2 6.100
524.2 6.300
502.2 6.310
Method Reported
Value
502.2 6.350
524.2 6.380
502.2 6.380
524.2 6.400
502.2 6.420
524.2 6.450
524.2 6.600
524.2 6.650
524.1 6.670
502.2 6.700
Method Reported
Value
502.2 6.720
502.2 6.730
502.2 6.750
524.2 6.790
502.1 6.820
other 6.840
524.2 6.930
524.2 6.940
524.2 6.950
502.2 6.990
Method Reported
Value
524.2 7.080
524.2 7.100
524.2 7.100
other 7.120
524.1 7.150
524.2 7.170
502.2 7.180
524.2 7.200
502.2 7.200
524.2 7.240
Method Reported
Value
502.2 7.250
524.2 7.280
524.2 7.360
502.2 7.400
other 7.407
502.2 7.420
524.1 7.500
524.2 7.500
524.2 7.540
502.2 7.548
Method Reported
Value
502.2 7.600
502.2 7.670
524.2 7.800
502.2 8.000
524.2 8.190
502.2 8.300
502.1 8.660
502.2 8.740
502.2 10.620

Water Study: 31
True Value: 13.0 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 9.230
502.2 9.896
502.1 10.300
524.2 10.670
502.2 11.100
502.2 11.100
Method Reported
Value
524.2 11.300
524.2 11.400
524.2 11.600
502.2 11.600
524.2 11.700
524.2 11.800
Method Reported
Value
502.2 11.900
502.2 12.000
502.2 12.100
524.1 12.100
other 12.100
502.1 12.200
Method Reported
Value
524.2 12.300
502.2 12.400
502.2 12.400
524.2 12.700
524.2 12.900
524.2 12.900
Method Reported
Value
502.2 13.200
524.2 132.000
524.2 13.300
502.1 13.300
502.2 13.400
502.2 13.400
Method Reported
Value
524.2 13.400
502.1 13.500
502.2 13.600
524.2 13.770
524.2 14.600
502.2 14.600
Water Study: 32
True Value: 10.1 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.1 7.310
502.2 7.760
502.2 8.200
502.2 8.280
502.2 8.300
502.2 8.370
502.1 8.400
524.2 8.450
502.2 8.500
524.2 8.640
524.2 8.800
Method Reported
Value
524.2 8.900
502.2 8.950
502.2 9.020
502.2 9.040
524.2 9.090
502.2 9.220
524.2 9.250
502.2 9.300
502.2 9.350
524.2 9.360
524.2 9.440
Method Reported
Value
502.1 9.450
524.2 9.500
502.2 9.530
502.2 9.590
524.2 9.690
502.2 9.690
524.2 9.750
524.2 9.780
524.2 9.780
524.2 9.810
524.2 9.820
Method Reported
Value
502.2 9.884
502.1 9.880
524.2 9.910
524.2 9.910
524.2 9.950
524.2 9.970
other 10.000
524.2 10.000
524.2 10.200
524.2 10.200
524.2 10.400
Method Reported
Value
502.2 10.400
524.2 10.410
502.2 10.500
524.2 10.500
502.2 10.600
other 10.600
502.2 10.600
502.2 10.600
524.2 10.600
524.2 10.700
524.2 10.900
Method Reported
Value
524.1 11.000
502.2 11.200
524.2 11.500
other 11.600
524.2 11.700
502.2 11.700
524.2 12.500




Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-178
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 33
True Value: 14.6 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 9.680
other 11.660
502.2 11.700
502.2 12.000
502.1 12.300
524.2 12.950
Method Reported
Value
524.2 13.100
502.2 13.300
502.2 13.400
502.2 13.500
524.2 13.540
524.2 13.600
Method Reported
Value
502.2 13.800
502.2 14.200
502.2 14.300
524.2 14.400
524.2 14.500
502.2 14.600
Method Reported
Value
502.2 14.660
524.2 14.800
524.2 14.900
524.2 14.900
524.1 14.900
524.2 15.000
Method Reported
Value
502.2 15.000
502.2 15.200
502.2 15.600
524.2 15.700
502.1 15.800
502.2 15.900
Method Reported
Value
524.2 17.100
524.2 19.600
524.2 20.000



Water Study: 34
True Value: 5.73 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 4.100
502.2 4.370
524.2 4.580
524.2 4.610
502.1 4.650
502.2 4.700
524.2 4.700
502.2 4.720
502.2 4.740
502.2 4.780
Method Reported
Value
other 4.800
502.2 4.840
502.2 4.850
502.2 4.860
524.2 4.950
502.2 4.986
524.2 5.080
524.2 5.100
524.2 5.150
524.2 5.170
Method Reported
Value
502.2 5.270
524.2 5.280
524.2 5.330
524.2 5.340
524.2 5.360
502.2 5.380
502.2 5.400
502.2 5.420
502.2 5.480
524.2 5.490
Method Reported
Value
502.2 5.510
502.2 5.510
502.2 5.550
524.2 5.570
502.2 5.580
524.2 5.600
524.2 5.640
502.2 5.700
524.2 5.720
524.2 5.730
Method Reported
Value
524.2 5.790
524.2 5.790
502.2 5.800
524.2 5.800
524.2 5.810
524.2 5.810
502.2 5.810
502.2 5.850
524.2 5.870
524.2 5.870
Method Reported
Value
502.2 5.890
502.2 5.900
502.2 6.010
524.2 6.080
524.2 6.100
502.2 6.130
524.2 6.200
524.2 6.300
524.2 6.920

Water Study: 35
True Value: 8.78 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 5.900
502.2 6.580
502.2 6.610
502.2 6.896
524.2 7.510
502.2 7.741
Method Reported
Value
502.2 7.850
524.2 7.880
524.2 7.900
502.2 7.910
524.2 8.110
other 8.126
Method Reported
Value
502.2 8.210
524.2 8.280
524.2 8.300
502.2 8.300
524.2 8.320
524.2 8.350
Method Reported
Value
524.2 8.500
524.2 8.500
502.2 8.590
524.2 8.600
524.2 8.630
524.2 8.680
Method Reported
Value
502.2 8.700
502.2 8.900
other 9.000
502.2 9.020
524.2 9.100
502.2 9.120
Method Reported
Value
524.2 9.280
524.2 9.550
502.2 9.570
524.2 9.570


Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-179
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 36
True Value: 14.5 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 11.200
502.2 11.500
524.2 12.300
524.2 12.400
524.2 12.500
524.2 12.600
524.2 12.800
524.2 12.900
502.2 12.900
524.2 12.900
Method Reported
Value
524.2 13.080
502.2 13.100
502.2 13.200
524.2 13.200
502.2 13.200
502.2 13.200
524.2 13.500
524.2 13.500
524.2 13.530
524.2 13.600
Method Reported
Value
524.2 13.600
524.2 13.600
502.2 13.600
524.2 13.610
502.2 13.700
502.2 13.700
502.2 13.700
502.2 13.800
502.2 13.800
524.2 13.800
Method Reported
Value
502.2 13.890
524.2 14.100
524.2 14.200
524.2 14.300
524.2 14.400
524.2 14.400
524.2 14.420
524.2 14.500
524.2 14.500
502.2 14.600
Method Reported
Value
524.2 14.600
524.2 14.600
502.2 14.700
502.2 14.800
502.2 15.000
524.2 15.000
524.2 15.100
other 15.200
other 15.200
502.2 15.200
Method Reported
Value
502.2 15.200
524.2 15.200
502.2 15.400
524.2 15.400
502.2 15.400
524.2 15.500
524.2 15.720
524.2 16.570
other 16.600

Water Study: 37
True Value: 10.3 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 8.280
502.2 8.710
524.2 8.720
524.2 8.920
502.2 9.350
524.2 9.420
524.2 9.460
524.2 9.550
Method Reported
Value
502.2 9.600
524.2 9.760
524.2 9.840
502.2 9.860
524.2 9.890
502.2 9.960
524.2 10.100
524.2 10.100
Method Reported
Value
524.2 10.100
502.2 10.100
524.2 10.110
524.2 10.200
502.2 10.200
524.2 10.280
502.2 10.400
502.2 10.400
Method Reported
Value
524.2 10.600
524.2 10.600
524.2 10.700
524.2 10.700
524.2 10.700
502.2 10.800
524.2 10.800
502.2 10.900
Method Reported
Value
524 10.900
other 11.100
502.2 11.100
502.2 11.200
524.2 11.360
other 11.800
502.2 11.900
524 11.900
Method Reported
Value
524.2 12.100
524.2 12.900
502.2 13.400
524.2 13.900
524.2 14.600
502.2 16.600
524.2 21.800

Water Study: 38
True Value: 17.2 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 10.600
524.2 13.500
502.2 13.900
502.2 14.100
502.2 14.400
524.2 14.500
524.2 14.600
524.2 15.000
other 15.300
Method Reported
Value
other 15.500
502.2 15.500
524.2 15.500
524.2 15.500
524.2 15.600
524.2 15.800
502.2 15.800
524.2 15.900
524.2 15.900
Method Reported
Value
524.2 16.100
502.2 16.100
524.2 16.100
524.2 16.300
502.2 16.400
502.2 16.500
502.2 16.500
502.2 16.600
502.2 16.700
Method Reported
Value
524.2 16.700
502.2 16.800
502.2 16.800
524.2 16.800
524.2 16.900
524.2 16.930
524.2 17.000
502.2 17.200
524.2 17.200
Method Reported
Value
524 17.300
502.2 17.300
524.2 17.300
524.2 17.400
524.2 17.400
502.2 17.500
524.2 17.700
524.2 17.800
524.2 17.800
Method Reported
Value
524.2 18.000
502.2 18.000
524.2 18.200
524.2 18.400
502.2 18.500
524.2 19.000
524.2 19.140
524.2 19.400
524.2 19.400
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-180
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 39
True Value: 11.2 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 8.440
524.2 8.610
524.2 8.960
524.2 9.070
524.2 9.560
502.2 9.700
524.2 9.830
502.2 10.000
Method Reported
Value
524.2 10.100
524.2 10.200
524.2 10.300
524.2 10.700
524.2 10.800
502.2 10.800
524.2 10.800
524.2 10.900
Method Reported
Value
502.2 11.000
524.2 11.000
524.2 11.100
524.2 11.100
502.2 11.200
524.2 11.200
524.2 11.200
524.2 11.500
Method Reported
Value
502.2 11.500
524.2 11.500
502.2 11.500
502.2 11.500
524.2 11.600
502.2 11.900
502.2 11.900
502.2 12.000
Method Reported
Value
502.2 12.100
524.2 12.100
524.2 12.100
524.2 12.100
524.2 12.200
524.2 12.620
524.2 12.700
524.2 12.800
Method Reported
Value
524.2 12.800
524.2 19.900
524.2 27.900





Water Study: 40
True Value: 7.2 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 5.730
524.2 5.790
524.2 5.790
524.2 5.810
524.2 5.860
524.2 6.090
524.2 6.200
502.2 6.230
524.2 6.280
other 6.300
Method Reported
Value
524.2 6.320
524.2 6.400
502.2 6.400
524.2 6.470
524.2 6.500
524.2 6.640
524.2 6.650
524.2 6.650
524.1 6.660
524.1 6.680
Method Reported
Value
524.2 6.770
524.2 6.800
524.2 6.800
524.2 6.800
502.2 6.840
524.2 6.840
524.2 6.880
524.2 6.890
502.2 6.930
524.2 6.970
Method Reported
Value
524.2 7.020
524.2 7.020
524.2 7.040
524.2 7.110
502.2 7.110
other 7.110
524.2 7.140
524.2 7.160
502.2 7.310
524.2 7.320
Method Reported
Value
502.2 7.360
524.2 7.370
524.2 7.400
524.2 7.460
524.2 7.530
502.2 7.550
524.2 7.590
502.2 7.780
524.2 7.900
502.2 8.100
Method Reported
Value
502.2 8.250
502.2 8.260
502.2 8.280
524.2 8.390
502.2 8.900
524.2 9.100
524.2 12.100



Water Study: 41
True Value: 12.6 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 10.500
502.2 10.500
524.2 10.500
524.2 10.900
524.2 11.100
524.2 11.200
524.2 11.300
Method Reported
Value
502.2 11.400
524.2 11.400
524.2 11.400
502.2 11.400
524.2 11.500
524.2 11.600
524.2 11.600
Method Reported
Value
524.2 11.600
524.2 11.600
524.2 11.600
524.2 11.700
502.2 11.900
other 11.900
502.2 11.900
Method Reported
Value
524.2 12.000
524.2 12.000
524.2 12.000
524.2 12.000
524.2 12.100
524.2 12.300
524.2 12.330
Method Reported
Value
524.2 12.500
524.2 12.520
524.2 12.700
524.2 12.800
502.2 12.900
502.2 13.200
524.2 13.200
Method Reported
Value
524.2 13.500
502.2 13.700
524.2 14.000
502.2 14.500
502.2 14.700
502.2 15.000

Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-181
Final - March 2003

-------
 1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Water Study: 26
True Value: 26.9 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
other 19.100
502.2 20.100
502.1 20.700
524.2 21.800
502.2 21.960
502.2 22.600
524.2 23.200
502.2 23.300
other 23.500
Method Reported
Value
524.2 24.500
524.1 24.600
524.2 24.600
502.2 24.700
524.2 24.760
502.2 24.800
502.2 24.900
502.2 25.000
502.2 25.000
Method Reported
Value
502.1 25.200
524.2 25.400
524.2 25.580
524.2 25.730
502.2 25.730
524.2 25.800
524.2 25.800
524.2 25.900
524.2 26.000
Method Reported
Value
502.2 26.200
502.1 26.380
502.2 26.500
502.2 26.800
524.2 26.900
502.2 27.100
524.2 27.700
524.2 27.800
502.2 27.900
Method Reported
Value
502.1 28.200
502.2 28.300
502.1 28.400
502.2 28.400
524.2 28.600
524.1 28.600
524.1 28.800
502.2 29.200
502.2 29.400
Method Reported
Value
502.2 29.600
524.1 29.900
524.2 30.100
502.2 30.200
524.2 30.400
524.1 30.600
524.2 31.100
other 32.400
502.2 32.900
Water Study: 30
True Value: 11.5 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.1 8.360
502.2 8.550
524.2 9.850
502.2 10.200
524.2 10.200
524.2 10.290
502.2 10.370
502.2 10.400
502.2 10.500
Method Reported
Value
502.2 10.500
other 10.580
524.2 10.600
502.2 10.600
502.2 10.700
524.2 10.700
502.2 10.900
other 10.900
524.2 11.000
Method Reported
Value
524.2 11.020
524.2 11.160
524.2 11.200
524.2 11.200
524.2 11.200
502.2 11.200
524.2 11.300
524.2 11.300
502.2 11.300
Method Reported
Value
524.2 11.300
524.2 11.300
502.2 11.400
524.1 11.400
502.2 11.400
502.2 11.500
524.2 11.500
502.2 11.500
524.2 11.500
Method Reported
Value
524.2 11.600
524.2 11.600
other 11.600
502.1 11.840
502.2 12.000
502.2 12.000
502.2 12.200
other 12.300
524.2 12.400
Method Reported
Value
other 12.500
502.2 12.700
524.2 13.100
502.2 13.100
502.2 14.200




Water Study: 32
True Value: 13.2 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 7.510
524.2 10.300
524.2 10.300
502.2 10.400
502.2 10.700
502.2 10.800
502.2 11.200
502.1 11.300
502.1 11.300
Method Reported
Value
502.2 11.400
524.2 11.400
502.2 11.500
524.1 11.600
524.2 11.600
524.2 11.700
502.2 11.700
502.2 11.800
524.2 11.900
Method Reported
Value
524.2 11.900
502.2 12.000
502.2 12.200
524.2 12.220
524.2 12.470
524.2 12.500
other 12.520
502.2 12.600
524.2 12.600
Method Reported
Value
524.2 12.900
502.2 12.900
524.2 12.900
524.2 12.900
other 13.000
502.2 13.000
524.2 13.040
502.2 13.100
502.1 13.100
Method Reported
Value
524.2 13.100
524.2 13.200
524.2 13.200
other 13.500
502.2 13.500
502.2 13.600
524.2 13.600
502.2 13.900
524.2 14.000
Method Reported
Value
524.2 14.360
524.2 14.600
502.2 14.800
524.2 14.900
524.2 15.000
502.1 15.300
502.2 15.500
524.2 16.600

Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-182
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 33
True Value: 15.7 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
other 10.980
524.1 11.800
502.1 12.900
502.2 13.000
other 13.100
502.2 13.400
Method Reported
Value
524.2 14.200
524.2 14.400
502.2 14.400
502.2 14.600
502.2 14.680
502.2 14.700
Method Reported
Value
524.2 14.900
524.2 14.930
524.2 14.980
502.2 15.000
502.2 15.200
502.2 15.200
Method Reported
Value
524.2 15.560
502.2 15.600
524.2 15.700
524.2 15.900
502.2 15.900
502.2 16.000
Method Reported
Value
524.2 16.100
502.1 16.100
524.2 16.500
502.2 16.500
524.2 16.600
other 17.000
Method Reported
Value
524.2 17.100
524.2 17.200
502.2 17.600
524.2 18.300
502.2 21.230

Water Study: 34
True Value: 8.50 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 6.480
502.2 6.510
524.2 6.760
502.2 6.770
502.2 7.410
502.2 7.510
502.2 7.560
524.2 7.600
524.2 7.620
524.2 7.650
Method Reported
Value
524.2 7.720
524.2 7.750
524.2 7.800
502.2 7.800
524.2 7.800
502.2 7.880
524.2 7.950
524.2 7.960
502.2 7.970
502.2 7.990
Method Reported
Value
524.2 8.020
502.2 8.050
502.2 8.060
502.2 8.080
524.2 8.080
502.2 8.100
502.2 8.104
524.2 8.110
502.2 8.130
524.2 8.180
Method Reported
Value
524.2 8.200
502.2 8.230
502.2 8.260
524.2 8.300
524.2 8.300
524.2 8.320
502.2 8.330
524.2 8.360
524.2 8.360
502.2 8.370
Method Reported
Value
524.2 8.480
524.2 8.500
502.2 8.510
524.2 8.520
502.2 8.530
502.2 8.560
524.2 8.630
502.2 8.670
other 8.700
524.2 8.700
Method Reported
Value
524.2 8.760
502.2 8.880
524.2 8.950
524.2 9.160
524.2 9.180
other 9.420
524.2 9.510
524.2 9.900
502.2 10.300

Water Study: 35
True Value: 12.8 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 8.170
502.2 10.800
524.2 10.900
502.2 10.900
502.2 11.200
524.2 11.200
Method Reported
Value
524.2 12.000
other 12.160
502.2 12.180
502.2 12.200
524.2 12.400
524.2 12.600
Method Reported
Value
502.2 12.700
502.2 12.700
524.2 12.700
524.2 12.700
524.2 12.800
502.2 12.800
Method Reported
Value
524.2 13.000
524.2 13.100
524.2 13.100
502.2 13.200
502.2 13.200
524.2 13.200
Method Reported
Value
502.2 13.300
524.2 13.300
524.2 13.500
502.2 13.770
502.2 13.900
524.2 14.000
Method Reported
Value
524.2 14.600
502.2 15.800
524.2 17.000



Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-183
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 36
True Value: 6.46 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 4.930
524.2 5.100
524.2 5.160
524.2 5.180
502.2 5.370
502.2 5.500
524.2 5.550
502.2 5.580
524.2 5.600
502.2 5.600
Method Reported
Value
524.2 5.680
524.2 5.700
502.2 5.700
502.2 5.700
524.2 5.720
524.2 5.720
524.2 5.770
524.2 5.830
524.2 5.840
524.2 5.900
Method Reported
Value
524.2 5.900
524.2 5.910
524.2 5.940
524.2 5.940
502.2 5.980
502.2 5.980
502.2 6.000
524.2 6.010
502.2 6.030
524.2 6.050
Method Reported
Value
524.2 6.120
524.2 6.150
524.2 6.190
502.2 6.210
524.2 6.260
502.2 6.320
502.2 6.340
524.2 6.340
502.2 6.340
502.2 6.380
Method Reported
Value
502.2 6.420
524.2 6.430
524.2 6.450
524.2 6.490
other 6.530
502.2 6.540
524.2 6.570
other 6.600
502.2 6.610
524.2 6.620
Method Reported
Value
502.2 6.700
524.2 6.740
502.2 6.760
524.2 6.830
524.2 7.130
other 7.300
524.2 7.400
502.2 7.940
502.2 8.000
524.2 9.490
Water Study: 37
True Value: 10.7 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 9.090
524.2 9.510
524.2 9.560
524.2 9.590
524.2 10.100
502.2 10.100
524.2 10.100
502.2 10.300
502.2 10.400
Method Reported
Value
502.2 10.400
524.2 10.500
524.2 10.600
524.2 10.600
502.2 10.600
524.2 10.700
524.2 10.800
524.2 10.800
502.2 10.900
Method Reported
Value
524.2 10.900
524.2 10.900
524.2 11.000
524.2 11.100
524.2 11.180
524.2 11.190
502.2 11.200
524.2 11.200
502.2 11.300
Method Reported
Value
524.2 11.300
524.2 11.380
502.2 11.400
502.2 11.500
502.2 11.600
502.2 11.600
524.2 11.700
502.2 11.900
502.2 11.900
Method Reported
Value
502.2 12.000
502.2 12.100
other 12.200
524.2 12.400
524.2 12.600
other 12.700
524.2 12.900
524.2 13.100
524.2 13.800
Method Reported
Value
524.2 15.700
524.2 21.200







Water Study: 38
True Value: 16.3 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 13.900
524.2 14.000
524.2 14.300
502.2 14.300
502.2 14.400
502.2 14.500
502.2 14.500
502.2 14.540
524.2 14.600
Method Reported
Value
524.2 14.700
524.2 14.700
524.2 14.800
502.2 14.900
524.2 14.900
524.2 14.900
502.2 15.000
524.2 15.000
502.2 15.100
Method Reported
Value
502.2 15.300
524.2 15.300
524.2 15.400
524.2 15.600
502.2 15.600
524.2 15.650
524.2 15.700
502.2 15.700
524.2 15.800
Method Reported
Value
other 15.800
524.2 15.800
502.2 15.900
524.2 15.970
524.2 16.000
other 16.100
524.2 16.100
502.2 16.200
524.2 16.300
Method Reported
Value
502.2 16.300
502.2 16.400
524.2 16.400
502.2 16.400
524.2 16.400
524.2 16.400
524.2 16.500
524.2 16.700
524.2 17.000
Method Reported
Value
524.2 17.000
524.2 17.100
502.2 17.200
524.2 17.200
502.2 17.300
524.2 17.300
524.2 17.700
524.2 18.600
524.2 20.900
Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-184
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 39
True Value: 12.3 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 8.070
524.2 9.850
502.2 10.100
524.2 10.250
524.2 10.300
502.2 10.400
524.2 10.400
Method Reported
Value
502.2 10.500
524.2 10.600
502.2 11.000
524.2 11.000
502.2 11.000
524.2 11.300
524.2 11.300
Method Reported
Value
502.2 11.300
524.2 11.300
502.2 11.400
502.2 11.400
524.2 11.400
524.2 11.500
524.2 11.500
Method Reported
Value
524.2 11.700
502.2 11.800
524.2 11.800
502.2 11.900
502.2 11.900
524.2 12.100
524.2 12.200
Method Reported
Value
524.2 12.200
524.2 12.200
524.2 12.270
524.2 12.300
524.2 12.300
524.2 12.300
524.2 12.400
Method Reported
Value
524.2 12.400
502.2 12.500
524.2 13.400
502.2 13.500
524.2 13.600
524.2 13.800
524.2 14.300
Water Study: 40
True Value: 17.2 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 11.200
524.2 13.900
524.2 14.000
524.2 14.300
524.2 14.300
524.2 14.500
524.2 15.000
524.2 15.100
502.2 15.100
524.2 15.210
Method Reported
Value
502.2 15.500
502.2 15.600
other 15.700
524.2 15.700
524.2 15.800
524.2 16.000
524.2 16.000
502.2 16.200
524.2 16.300
524.2 16.400
Method Reported
Value
524.2 16.400
502.2 16.400
524.2 16.400
524.2 16.400
502.2 16.400
524.2 16.400
524.2 16.400
524.2 16.400
524.2 16.500
524.2 16.600
Method Reported
Value
502.2 16.600
524.2 16.600
524.2 16.600
524.2 17.000
524.2 17.000
524.2 17.000
524.2 17.100
524.2 17.100
502.2 17.200
524.2 17.200
Method Reported
Value
502.2 17.300
502.2 17.400
502.2 17.400
524.2 17.400
other 17.400
524.2 17.500
502.2 17.600
524.2 17.800
524.2 17.900
524.2 18.000
Method Reported
Value
502.2 18.300
502.2 18.400
524.2 18.800
502.2 19.000
524.2 19.500
524.2 20.100
524.2 20.200



Water Study: 41
True Value: 13.3 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 10.500
524.2 11.200
502.2 12.000
502.2 12.200
524.2 12.200
524.2 12.200
502.2 12.300
Method Reported
Value
524.2 12.300
524.2 12.400
524.2 12.400
524.2 12.500
524.2 12.700
524.2 12.800
502.2 12.900
Method Reported
Value
524.2 12.900
502.2 13.000
524.2 13.100
524.2 13.100
524.2 13.200
524.2 13.300
other 13.400
Method Reported
Value
524.2 13.400
524.2 13.500
524.2 13.500
524.2 13.500
524.2 13.500
502.2 13.700
524.2 13.790
Method Reported
Value
524.2 13.800
502.2 13.800
502.2 13.900
524.2 14.000
502.2 14.100
524.2 14.100
524.2 14.300
Method Reported
Value
502.2 14.600
502.2 14.900
524.2 15.000
524.2 15.000
524.2 15.000
502.2 16.500

Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-185
Final - March 2003

-------
 Trichloroethylene
Water Study: 24
True Value: 7.36 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.1 4.640
502.2 5.650
524.1 5.680
502.1 5.830
502.1 6.100
502.2 6.330
502.1 6.360
524.1 6.500
524.2 6.590
524.1 6.637
Method Reported
Value
502.2 6.740
524.2 6.840
502.2 6.900
502.1 6.930
524.2 6.938
502.2 6.960
524.2 6.980
502.2 7.000
524.2 7.042
502.2 7.100
Method Reported
Value
502.2 7.130
524.2 7.130
524.2 7.170
524.1 7.260
524.2 7.270
524.2 7.280
524.2 7.300
other 7.300
502.2 7.300
524.2 7.300
Method Reported
Value
524.2 7.340
502.2 7.340
524.2 7.360
502.2 7.398
other 7.400
502.2 7.430
502.2 7.460
524.1 7.560
502.2 7.580
502.2 7.580
Method Reported
Value
502.1 7.600
524.2 7.600
524.2 7.610
524.2 7.750
502.2 7.800
502.1 7.850
other 7.900
502.2 7.970
502.2 8.000
524.2 8.100
Method Reported
Value
524.2 8.180
502.2 8.210
502.2 8.550
502.2 9.100
524.2 9.190
502.2 9.550
524.2 9.850



Water Study: 25
True Value: 10.4 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.1 6.700
502.2 7.890
524.2 9.069
524.1 9.240
524.2 9.320
524.2 9.480
502.2 9.650
Method Reported
Value
502.2 9.700
524.2 9.730
502.2 9.800
524.2 9.850
other 10.100
524.2 10.110
other 10.150
Method Reported
Value
502.2 10.200
524.2 10.200
524.2 10.400
524.2 10.400
502.2 10.400
502.2 10.400
502.2 10.410
Method Reported
Value
502.2 10.500
502.2 10.500
502.1 10.600
502.2 10.850
524.1 11.000
524.2 11.000
502.1 11.100
Method Reported
Value
524.2 11.200
502.2 11.200
502.2 11.300
524.1 11.900
524.2 12.400
524.1 12.500
502.2 12.700
Method Reported
Value
502.2 13.000
other 13.100





Water Study: 26
True Value: 6.63 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.1 5.000
502.2 5.230
524.2 5.610
524.2 5.680
502.2 5.760
524.2 5.860
524.2 5.880
502.2 5.900
502.2 5.910
502.2 5.950
Method Reported
Value
524.1 5.990
524.2 6.022
524.1 6.080
524.2 6.160
other 6.200
524.2 6.300
524.2 6.310
502.2 6.310
524.2 6.480
502.1 6.500
Method Reported
Value
524.2 6.500
502.2 6.500
524.2 6.520
502.1 6.540
524.2 6.550
524.2 6.650
502.2 6.660
524.2 6.700
524.2 6.700
502.2 6.700
Method Reported
Value
502.2 6.730
524.2 6.740
524.2 6.780
524.1 6.910
502.2 6.930
502.2 7.000
502.2 7.000
other 7.030
502.2 7.030
524.2 7.090
Method Reported
Value
502.2 7.100
502.1 7.110
524.2 7.140
502.2 7.180
502.2 7.190
502.1 7.210
524.1 7.230
502.2 7.270
502.2 7.310
502.2 7.360
Method Reported
Value
502.1 7.390
524.2 7.400
524.2 7.400
524.2 7.490
524.1 7.550
502.2 7.590
524.2 7.700
524.2 7.800
502.2 8.409

Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-186
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 27
True Value: 14.0 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 10.000
524.2 11.100
502.2 11.600
524.2 12.000
502.2 12.100
other 12.300
524.2 12.500
Method Reported
Value
502.2 13.000
502.2 13.000
524.2 13.100
524.2 13.240
502.2 13.300
524.2 13.300
524.2 13.620
Method Reported
Value
524.2 13.690
524.2 13.800
502.2 13.900
502.2 13.900
524.2 13.900
502.2 14.000
other 14.000
Method Reported
Value
502.2 14.100
502.2 14.100
524.2 14.200
524.1 14.200
502.2 14.300
502.1 14.400
502.2 14.600
Method Reported
Value
502.2 14.600
502.2 14.700
524.2 15.200
other 15.360
502.2 15.900
502.2 15.900
524.2 16.070
Method Reported
Value
502.2 16.300
524.1 21.600





Water Study: 29
True Value: 15.9 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 11.100
502.2 12.790
502.2 13.100
502.2 13.800
502.2 14.220
524.2 14.500
Method Reported
Value
524.2 14.600
502.2 14.700
524.2 14.800
524.2 14.970
524.2 15.660
502.2 15.900
Method Reported
Value
524.2 15.900
502.2 16.000
524.1 16.200
524.2 16.200
524.2 16.500
524.2 16.800
Method Reported
Value
other 16.800
502.2 17.100
other 17.100
502.2 17.400
524.2 17.600
524.1 17.800
Method Reported
Value
524.2 17.900
502.2 18.100
other 18.390
502.2 18.540
502.2 18.690
502.2 18.700
Method Reported
Value
524.2 20.000
524.2 20.000
502.2 20.500
502.2 22.600


Water Study: 30
True Value: 9.45 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 6.430
502.1 7.290
524.2 7.440
524.2 7.470
502.2 7.600
524.2 7.880
524.2 7.900
502.2 7.920
524.2 8.000
502.1 8.160
Method Reported
Value
524.2 8.190
502.2 8.220
524.1 8.530
524.2 8.600
502.2 8.660
502.2 8.680
502.1 8.710
524.2 8.810
524.2 8.900
502.2 8.950
Method Reported
Value
524.2 9.000
524.2 9.140
524.2 9.170
502.2 9.170
502.2 9.180
502.2 9.200
524.2 9.230
524.2 9.250
502.2 9.310
524.1 9.370
Method Reported
Value
502.2 9.425
524.2 9.450
other 9.490
524.2 9.510
502.2 9.550
524.2 9.580
other 9.590
524.2 9.600
502.2 9.620
502.2 9.700
Method Reported
Value
524.2 9.700
other 9.797
502.2 9.800
524.2 9.860
502.2 9.910
524.2 10.060
502.2 10.100
524.1 10.100
524.2 10.200
524.2 10.200
Method Reported
Value
502.2 10.300
502.2 10.300
502.2 10.400
524.2 10.400
524.2 10.400
502.2 10.400
502.2 10.400
502.2 10.430
502.2 10.700

Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-187
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 31
True Value: 7.46 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 4.280
524.2 6.400
502.2 6.477
524.2 6.500
524.2 6.720
502.1 6.730
Method Reported
Value
524.2 6.800
502.2 6.830
other 7.010
502.2 7.060
502.2 7.070
502.2 7.200
Method Reported
Value
502.1 7.300
502.2 7.330
502.2 7.350
524.1 7.370
502.2 7.400
524.2 7.460
Method Reported
Value
524.2 7.470
524.2 7.470
524.2 7.480
524.2 7.480
502.2 7.540
502.2 7.550
Method Reported
Value
524.2 7.600
524.2 7.600
502.2 7.640
502.2 7.670
502.1 7.700
524.2 7.720
Method Reported
Value
524.2 7.800
524.2 7.954
524.2 7.990
502.2 8.430
502.1 8.480
502.2 8.550
Water Study: 32
True Value: 11.2 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 8.300
502.2 8.800
502.2 9.230
524.2 9.350
502.1 9.400
524.2 9.460
524.2 9.500
524.2 9.850
524.2 9.930
524.2 10.100
502.2 10.100
Method Reported
Value
502.2 10.300
502.2 10.400
524.2 10.500
524.2 10.600
524.2 10.600
502.2 10.600
524.2 10.600
524.2 10.640
524.2 10.700
502.1 10.700
502.2 10.800
Method Reported
Value
524.2 10.800
524.2 11.000
524.2 11.070
502.1 11.100
502.2 11.100
524.2 11.100
502.2 11.100
524.2 11.100
502.2 11.200
other 11.200
502.2 11.200
Method Reported
Value
502.2 11.300
502.2 11.300
502.2 11.300
524.2 11.300
other 11.300
524.2 11.400
524.2 11.400
524.2 11.400
524.2 11.470
524.2 11.600
524.2 11.630
Method Reported
Value
502.2 11.700
502.2 11.700
524.2 11.800
502.1 11.800
524.2 11.800
524.1 11.900
524.2 12.000
502.2 12.000
502.2 12.000
524.2 12.000
other 12.200
Method Reported
Value
502.2 12.300
502.2 12.300
524.2 12.400
524.2 12.500
502.2 12.600
502.2 12.800
524.2 13.100
502.2 13.700



Water Study: 33
True Value: 14.9 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 7.770
502.2 11.200
502.2 12.300
other 12.570
502.1 13.200
524.2 13.380
Method Reported
Value
502.2 13.600
502.2 13.750
524.2 14.000
524.1 14.100
524.2 14.130
502.2 14.300
Method Reported
Value
502.2 14.500
524.2 14.500
502.2 14.600
524.2 14.900
502.2 14.900
other 14.900
Method Reported
Value
524.2 15.000
502.2 15.100
502.2 15.100
502.2 15.360
502.2 15.400
524.2 15.400
Method Reported
Value
524.2 15.500
502.2 15.600
524.2 16.000
502.2 16.000
524.2 16.000
524.2 16.400
Method Reported
Value
524.2 16.600
502.2 17.000
502.2 17.000
502.1 17.200


Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-188
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 34
True Value: 8.89 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
other 6.600
524.2 6.930
524.2 7.060
other 7.200
502.2 7.200
524.2 7.700
524.2 7.700
502.2 7.710
524.2 7.850
524.2 8.010
Method Reported
Value
502.2 8.210
524.2 8.330
502.2 8.330
524.2 8.330
502.1 8.400
524.2 8.440
502.2 8.450
524.2 8.470
502.2 8.490
524.2 8.500
Method Reported
Value
502.2 8.510
502.2 8.540
502.2 8.550
502.2 8.550
524.2 8.590
524.2 8.620
502.2 8.640
524.2 8.660
524.2 8.700
524.2 8.700
Method Reported
Value
502.2 8.730
524.2 8.750
502.2 8.860
524.2 8.900
524.2 8.900
502.2 8.930
502.2 8.990
524.2 9.000
524.2 9.000
502.2 9.020
Method Reported
Value
524.2 9.070
524.2 9.100
524.2 9.120
502.2 9.120
502.2 9.150
502.2 9.160
524.2 9.260
502.2 9.300
524.2 9.320
524.2 9.320
Method Reported
Value
524.2 9.490
524.2 9.670
502.2 9.700
502.2 9.750
502.2 9.780
502.2 9.970
524.2 10.130
502.2 10.300
524.2 10.400
502.2 10.690
Water Study: 35
True Value: 6. 13 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 4.950
502.2 5.330
502.2 5.460
502.2 5.465
524.2 5.700
502.2 5.700
Method Reported
Value
502.2 5.710
502.2 5.740
524.2 5.800
502.2 5.830
524.2 5.860
other 5.896
Method Reported
Value
502.2 5.900
502.2 6.010
524.2 6.050
502.2 6.070
524.2 6.090
524.2 6.150
Method Reported
Value
524.2 6.180
524.2 6.200
524.2 6.210
524.2 6.240
524.2 6.270
524.2 6.300
Method Reported
Value
524.2 6.370
524.2 6.510
524.2 6.530
other 6.600
502.2 6.640
524.2 6.700
Method Reported
Value
524.2 6.710
502.2 6.910
502.2 7.260
502.2 8.730


Water Study: 36
True Value: 17.4 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 9.260
524.2 13.900
502.2 14.500
524.2 14.700
524.2 14.700
524.2 14.900
524.2 14.900
524.2 15.200
524.2 15.200
524.2 15.240
502.2 15.500
Method Reported
Value
524.2 15.500
524.2 15.700
524.2 15.700
502.2 15.700
524.2 15.800
524.2 15.800
524.2 15.900
502.2 15.900
502.2 15.900
502.2 15.970
524.2 16.000
Method Reported
Value
524.2 16.040
524.2 16.100
524.2 16.200
502.2 16.200
502.2 16.300
524.2 16.480
502.2 16.500
524.2 16.500
502.2 16.600
524.2 16.660
502.2 16.700
Method Reported
Value
524.2 16.700
502.2 16.800
502.2 16.800
524.2 16.800
524.2 16.900
502.2 16.900
502.2 17.200
524.2 17.200
502.2 17.200
524.2 17.220
502.2 17.300
Method Reported
Value
502.2 17.400
other 17.400
524.2 17.400
502.2 17.600
524.2 17.600
524.2 17.600
524.2 17.700
524.2 17.700
524.2 17.700
other 17.800
524.2 17.800
Method Reported
Value
other 17.900
502.2 18.100
502.2 18.200
524.2 19.010
other 19.100
502.2 19.100





Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-189
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 37
True Value: 8.70 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 7.220
524.2 7.290
524.2 7.290
502.2 7.620
524.2 7.780
524.2 7.840
524.2 7.850
502.2 7.870
Method Reported
Value
502.2 8.070
524.2 8.240
502.2 8.250
other 8.280
524.2 8.290
502.2 8.300
524.2 8.330
524.2 8.430
Method Reported
Value
524.2 8.440
524.2 8.440
524.2 8.480
524.2 8.480
524.2 8.480
other 8.500
524.2 8.510
502.2 8.580
Method Reported
Value
524.2 8.630
524.2 8.650
524.2 8.700
502.2 8.740
524.2 8.780
502.2 8.900
502.2 8.910
502.2 8.960
Method Reported
Value
524.2 9.000
502.2 9.110
502.2 9.150
502.2 9.370
524.2 9.370
502.2 9.400
524.2 9.460
502.2 9.530
Method Reported
Value
502.2 9.540
524.2 9.800
524.2 10.300
other 10.400
524.2 10.700
502.2 11.100
524.2 11.700
524.2 16.600
Water Study: 38
True Value: 12.4 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 9.130
524.2 9.790
524.2 10.400
502.2 10.500
502.2 10.500
other 10.700
524.2 10.700
524.2 10.700
524.2 10.800
502.2 10.800
Method Reported
Value
502.2 11.000
524.2 11.000
502.2 11.050
502.2 11.200
524.2 11.300
524.2 11.400
524.2 11.400
524.2 11.500
524.2 11.500
524.2 11.600
Method Reported
Value
524.2 11.600
502.2 11.600
other 11.700
502.2 11.800
524.2 11.900
524.2 11.900
524.2 11.900
524.2 11.900
524.2 11.900
other 12.000
Method Reported
Value
524.2 12.000
524.2 12.100
524.2 12.160
524.2 12.200
502.2 12.200
524.2 12.250
524.2 12.300
502.2 12.300
524.2 12.300
502.2 12.400
Method Reported
Value
502.2 12.400
502.2 12.500
502.2 12.500
524.2 12.600
502.2 12.600
524.2 12.600
502.2 12.800
502.2 12.900
524.2 12.900
524.2 12.900
Method Reported
Value
524.2 13.000
524.2 13.000
502.2 13.200
524.2 13.600
524.2 15.600





Water Study: 39
True Value: 16.4 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 13.400
502.2 13.900
524.2 13.900
524.2 14.000
524.2 14.000
524.2 14.400
524.2 14.500
524.2 14.600
Method Reported
Value
524.2 14.700
524.2 14.900
524.2 14.900
50.2 15.100
502.2 15.200
502.2 15.200
524.2 15.400
524.2 15.400
Method Reported
Value
524.2 15.500
524.2 15.530
other 15.600
524.2 15.600
524.2 15.800
524.2 15.800
524.2 15.800
524.2 15.900
Method Reported
Value
502.2 16.000
524.2 16.100
524.2 16.200
524.2 16.200
502.2 16.300
502.2 16.300
502.2 16.400
524.2 16.400
Method Reported
Value
524.2 16.900
524.2 17.200
502.2 17.200
502.2 17.300
502.2 17.300
524.2 17.400
502.2 18.100
524.2 18.200
Method Reported
Value
524.2 18.600
524.2 18.800
524.2 29.600
524.2 42.560




Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-190
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 40
True Value: 5.80 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 4.200
524.2 4.410
502.2 4.660
524.2 4.850
524.2 4.860
524.2 4.980
524.2 5.060
524.2 5.140
524.2 5.150
other 5.180
Method Reported
Value
524.2 5.200
524.2 5.220
524.2 5.290
524.2 5.300
524.2 5.300
524.2 5.300
524.2 5.320
524.2 5.360
524.2 5.410
524.2 5.450
Method Reported
Value
524.2 5.520
524.2 5.530
524.2 5.600
other 5.620
524.2 5.660
524.2 5.660
524.2 5.670
other 5.670
524.2 5.670
502.2 5.680
Method Reported
Value
524.2 5.700
524.2 5.720
502.2 5.720
524.2 5.720
524.2 5.730
502.2 5.750
524.2 5.750
524.2 5.810
524 5.840
524.2 5.860
Method Reported
Value
524.2 5.880
502.2 5.920
524.2 5.940
502.2 6.000
502.2 6.000
502.2 6.010
502.2 6.040
524.2 6.060
524.2 6.100
502.2 6.110
Method Reported
Value
502.2 6.150
502.2 6.400
502.2 6.510
524.2 6.830
502.2 7.160
524.2 7.310
502.2 7.700
524.2 16.500


Water Study: 41
True Value: 6.87 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 5.390
524.2 5.660
524.2 5.720
524.2 5.910
524.2 6.000
524.2 6.060
502.2 6.250
Method Reported
Value
502.2 6.330
524.2 6.340
524.2 6.350
524.2 6.400
524.2 6.440
524.2 6.460
524.2 6.500
Method Reported
Value
524.2 6.500
502.2 6.500
524.2 6.550
524.2 6.600
524.2 6.600
524.2 6.660
524.2 6.700
Method Reported
Value
524.2 6.710
502.2 6.760
524.2 6.810
524.2 6.890
other 6.910
502.2 7.040
524.2 7.060
Method Reported
Value
524.2 7.060
524.2 7.080
502.2 7.180
524.2 7.200
502.2 7.210
524.2 7.210
524.2 7.220
Method Reported
Value
502.2 7.270
502.2 7.300
502.2 7.410
502.2 7.430
524.2 7.600
502.2 7.800

Vinyl Chloride
Water Study: 24
True Value: 4.35 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 1.540
524.2 1.720
other 2.000
other 2.500
502.2 3.070
502.2 3.210
524.1 3.320
502.2 3.370
524.2 3.400
524.2 3.460
Method Reported
Value
502.2 3.480
502.2 3.545
502.2 3.670
524.2 3.700
524.2 3.700
502.1 3.700
524.1 3.800
502.2 3.800
502.2 3.820
502.1 3.850
Method Reported
Value
502.2 3.850
502.1 3.890
524.2 3.900
524.2 3.930
502.2 3.950
524.2 4.010
502.2 4.090
502.2 4.200
524.2 4.200
524.1 4.200
Method Reported
Value
502.1 4.300
502.1 4.300
502.1 4.400
524.2 4.433
524.2 4.480
524.1 4.480
502.2 4.500
502.2 4.500
524.1 4.560
502.2 4.710
Method Reported
Value
502.2 4.940
524.2 5.040
502.2 5.100
other 5.140
502.2 5.240
524.2 5.360
524.1 5.470
502.2 5.480
524.2 5.610
524.2 5.880
Method Reported
Value
524.2 6.390
524.2 6.800
502.2 6.900
502.2 7.800
other 8.400
524.2 9.052
524.1 10.300



Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-191
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 25
True Value: 12.4 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 5.580
502.2 6.480
502.2 8.400
other 8.540
524.1 9.200
502.2 9.950
502.2 10.000
Method Reported
Value
other 10.300
524.2 10.400
other 10.750
502.2 10.800
502.2 11.000
524.2 11.200
502.2 11.200
Method Reported
Value
524.2 11.240
502.1 11.400
502.2 11.500
524.2 11.900
524.2 12.500
524.2 12.620
524.2 12.900
Method Reported
Value
524.2 12.940
524.2 13.000
524.2 13.100
502.2 13.300
524.2 13.390
524.1 13.600
502.2 14.000
Method Reported
Value
524.2 14.600
502.2 15.000
524.1 15.900
502.2 16.000
502.1 16.100
502.2 16.100
502.2 16.640
Method Reported
Value
524.1 21.300
524.1 21.800
other 41.700




Water Study: 26
True Value: 8.70 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 5.600
502.2 5.640
502.2 6.350
502.2 6.480
524.2 6.520
524.2 6.540
502.1 6.570
524.2 7.240
502.2 7.580
502.1 7.750
Method Reported
Value
524.2 7.850
524.2 7.930
524.2 8.070
502.2 8.100
502.2 8.180
524.2 8.200
524.2 8.230
502.1 8.370
524.1 8.420
other 8.500
Method Reported
Value
502.1 8.540
524.1 8.600
502.2 8.700
502.2 8.810
502.2 8.860
524.1 9.000
502.2 9.000
502.2 9.020
524.2 9.040
other 9.120
Method Reported
Value
524.2 9.150
502.2 9.200
502.2 9.200
524.1 9.440
524.2 9.640
502.1 9.680
502.2 9.690
502.2 9.740
524.1 10.000
524.2 10.000
Method Reported
Value
502.1 10.100
524.2 10.100
524.2 10.160
524.2 10.200
524.2 10.500
524.2 10.600
502.2 10.700
502.2 10.900
524.2 11.300
502.2 11.500
Method Reported
Value
524.2 11.700
524.2 12.200
524.2 12.420
524.2 12.520
502.2 12.600
524.2 13.500
502.2 15.700
524.2 22.000
502.2 30.030

Water Study: 27
True Value: 3.57 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
other 1.740
524.2 1.850
other 2.280
502.2 2.970
502.2 3.020
502.2 3.160
502.2 3.250
Method Reported
Value
524.2 3.290
524.2 3.300
502.2 3.390
502.2 3.420
524.2 3.450
502.1 3.450
502.2 3.700
Method Reported
Value
other 3.700
524.2 3.700
502.2 3.730
524.2 3.750
524.2 3.960
502.2 4.080
502.2 4.130
Method Reported
Value
524.2 4.200
502.2 4.310
524.1 4.430
502.2 4.510
524.2 4.580
502.2 4.620
524.2 4.640
Method Reported
Value
524.2 4.660
524.2 4.700
502.2 4.840
502.2 4.890
524.2 4.950
502.2 5.400
other 5.730
Method Reported
Value
524.2 6.200
502.2 6.210
524.1 10.100
502.2 11.000



Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-192
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 29
True Value: 14.6 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
other 3.920
524.2 7.400
502.2 8.130
502.2 11.800
502.2 12.070
502.2 12.100
502.2 12.400
Method Reported
Value
502.2 12.400
502.2 13.060
524.2 13.200
524.2 13.600
524.2 13.700
502.2 13.790
502.2 14.200
Method Reported
Value
524.2 14.400
502.2 14.600
524.2 14.600
524.2 14.700
524.2 14.710
524.2 15.030
502.2 15.200
Method Reported
Value
524.1 15.500
524.2 15.900
502.2 16.400
524.2 16.800
524.2 16.900
524.2 17.200
502.2 17.400
Method Reported
Value
502.2 17.700
524.2 18.400
502.2 20.300
524.2 20.400
502.2 20.400
524.1 20.900
other 21.160
Method Reported
Value
502.2 22.100
502.2 22.800
other 26.700




Water Study: 30
True Value: 5.48 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 3.200
502.2 4.000
524.2 4.250
502.1 4.300
other 4.390
502.1 4.460
524.2 4.500
524.2 4.640
502.2 4.700
524.2 4.710
Method Reported
Value
502.2 4.880
524.2 4.980
502.2 5.040
502.2 5.050
502.2 5.077
502.2 5.100
502.2 5.190
524.2 5.200
524.2 5.400
524.2 5.410
Method Reported
Value
502.2 5.480
502.2 5.490
524.2 5.500
502.2 5.530
502.2 5.600
524.1 5.730
502.1 5.780
524.2 5.800
502.2 5.850
524.2 5.950
Method Reported
Value
524.2 5.950
502.2 5.950
524.2 6.000
524.2 6.010
502.2 6.090
502.2 6.160
524.2 6.230
524.2 6.300
other 6.350
502.2 6.400
Method Reported
Value
524.2 6.440
524.2 6.480
other 6.498
524.2 6.630
502.2 6.700
502.2 6.710
524.2 6.790
502.2 7.160
502.2 7.280
524.2 7.700
Method Reported
Value
524.2 7.800
524.2 7.850
524.2 7.990
524.1 9.350
502.2 12.900
524.1 13.400
502.2 16.890
524.2 20.300


Water Study: 31
True Value: 11.9 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 0.500
502.2 3.100
502.2 6.528
other 6.600
502.1 9.410
502.1 9.720
502.2 10.200
Method Reported
Value
502.2 10.300
524.2 10.490
502.2 10.500
502.2 10.700
524.2 10.790
502.2 11.400
524.2 11.700
Method Reported
Value
524.2 11.800
502.2 12.100
524.2 12.100
502.2 12.200
502.2 12.200
524.2 12.300
524.2 12.300
Method Reported
Value
524.2 12.310
502.2 12.400
524.2 12.600
502.2 12.700
524.2 12.900
524.1 13.100
502.2 13.400
Method Reported
Value
524.2 14.000
524.2 14.000
524.2 14.200
502.1 14.500
502.1 14.600
502.1 15.700
524.2 16.300
Method Reported
Value
524.2 16.900
502.2 20.100
502.2 26.100
502.2 27.000



Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-193
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 32
True Value: 2.57 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 1.770
502.2 1.900
502.2 1.900
502.2 1.910
502.2 1.910
502.2 1.950
502.1 2.080
502.2 2.100
524.2 2.200
524.2 2.200
524.2 2.430
Method Reported
Value
524.2 2.440
502.2 2.440
524.2 2.460
502.2 2.500
502.2 2.520
502.2 2.570
524.2 2.600
other 2.630
524.2 2.640
524.2 2.650
502.2 2.670
Method Reported
Value
524.2 2.680
524.2 2.690
502.2 2.690
502.1 2.700
other 2.700
524.2 2.710
502.2 2.730
524.2 2.730
502.2 2.750
524.2 2.760
502.2 2.780
Method Reported
Value
502.2 2.780
524.2 2.810
524.2 2.820
524.2 2.860
524.2 2.863
524.2 2.890
524.2 2.940
524.2 2.940
524.2 3.000
502.2 3.020
502.2 3.080
Method Reported
Value
524.2 3.130
524.2 3.200
524.2 3.200
502.2 3.220
other 3.230
502.2 3.250
524.2 3.400
524.2 3.400
524.2 3.460
502.2 3.600
524.2 3.650
Method Reported
Value
524.2 3.660
524.2 3.730
502.2 3.930
524.2 4.350
524.1 4.500
502.1 5.400
502.2 6.020
502.1 6.940



Water Study: 33
True Value: 7.35 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 4.590
502.2 4.960
502.2 6.100
502.1 6.140
502.2 7.100
524.2 7.260
Method Reported
Value
502.2 7.400
502.2 7.520
524.2 7.680
524.2 7.780
524.2 7.900
524.2 8.320
Method Reported
Value
502.2 8.410
502.2 8.460
524.2 8.500
524.2 8.500
502.2 8.580
524.2 8.790
Method Reported
Value
524.2 8.940
502.2 8.940
524.2 9.050
502.2 9.240
524.2 9.380
524.2 9.700
Method Reported
Value
502.2 9.780
524.2 10.200
502.2 10.200
524.1 10.300
524.2 10.600
502.2 11.200
Method Reported
Value
524.2 11.900
other 12.210
502.2 13.300
502.1 29.800


Water Study: 34
True Value: 14.1 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 10.000
524.2 10.800
502.2 11.000
502.2 11.100
502.2 11.100
502.2 11.700
other 12.400
524.2 12.670
524.2 13.000
502.2 13.400
Method Reported
Value
502.2 14.010
524.2 14.100
524.2 14.200
502.1 14.200
524.2 14.400
524.2 14.400
524.2 14.600
524.2 14.620
502.2 14.700
524.2 14.700
Method Reported
Value
502.2 14.800
524.2 15.000
524.2 15.000
524.2 15.000
502.2 15.000
502.2 15.100
524.2 15.300
502.2 15.300
other 15.400
502.2 15.500
Method Reported
Value
524.2 15.500
524.2 15.500
502.2 15.500
524.2 16.000
502.2 16.170
524.2 16.300
524.2 16.500
502.2 16.600
524.2 16.700
524.2 16.700
Method Reported
Value
524.2 16.900
502.2 16.900
524.2 17.500
502.2 17.500
524.2 17.600
502.2 17.600
502.2 17.600
502.2 17.700
502.2 18.100
524.2 18.400
Method Reported
Value
502.2 18.500
524.2 18.500
524.2 19.000
502.2 19.100
502.2 19.300
524.2 20.020
524.2 20.500
524.2 20.670
524.2 22.200

Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-194
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 35
True Value: 4.91 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 3.470
502.2 3.780
502.2 4.254
524.2 4.260
502.2 4.310
502.2 4.360
Method Reported
Value
524.2 4.450
other 4.490
502.2 4.510
524.2 4.700
524.2 4.700
other 4.800
Method Reported
Value
524.2 5.000
502.2 5.000
524.2 5.350
524.2 5.400
502.2 5.410
502.2 5.480
Method Reported
Value
524.2 5.600
524.2 5.690
524.2 5.710
524.2 5.720
524.2 5.750
524.2 5.910
Method Reported
Value
502.2 6.010
502.2 6.060
524.2 6.110
502.2 6.160
524.2 6.230
502.2 6.260
Method Reported
Value
524.2 6.300
524.2 6.340
502.2 6.350
524.2 3.390
524.2 6.800
502.2 6.870
Water Study: 36
True Value: 9.47 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 6.430
502.2 6.960
502.2 7.560
524.2 7.600
524.2 7.900
524.2 8.140
502.2 8.140
502.2 8.340
524.2 8.400
502.2 8.560
Method Reported
Value
524.2 8.560
502.2 8.600
502.2 8.720
502.2 8.790
524.2 8.880
524.2 8.900
524.2 8.990
502.2 9.030
524.2 9.130
502.2 9.660
Method Reported
Value
524.2 9.700
524.2 9.700
524.2 9.720
502.2 9.770
502.2 9.850
524.2 9.890
other 10.000
524.2 10.000
other 10.100
524.2 10.320
Method Reported
Value
524.2 10.370
524.2 10.580
502.2 10.600
524.2 10.600
524.2 10.700
502.2 10.700
502.2 10.700
other 10.900
524.2 10.900
524.2 11.000
Method Reported
Value
524.2 11.000
502.2 11.100
524.2 11.100
524.2 11.300
524.2 11.300
502.2 11.500
502.2 11.600
524.2 11.600
502.2 11.800
524.2 11.800
Method Reported
Value
other 11.900
524.2 11.960
524.2 13.200
502.2 13.900
524.2 14.000
502.2 14.000
524.2 14.000
524.2 14.300
524.2 14.500
524.2 17.140
Water Study: 37
True Value: 14.8 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 10.100
524.2 11.000
502.2 11.300
502.2 11.300
524.2 11.900
524.2 12.000
502.2 12.400
502.2 12.400
502.2 12.700
Method Reported
Value
502.2 13.600
502.2 13.700
524.2 14.080
524.2 14.200
524.2 14.400
524.2 14.500
524.2 14.530
524.2 14.700
other 15.100
Method Reported
Value
other 15.100
524.2 15.200
524.2 15.400
502.2 15.400
524.2 15.500
502.2 15.600
524.2 15.700
other 16.000
502.2 16.100
Method Reported
Value
524.2 16.300
524.2 16.470
502.2 16.500
524.2 16.500
524.2 17.000
524.2 17.000
502.2 17.700
524.2 17.800
other 17.800
Method Reported
Value
524 17.910
524.2 18.000
524.2 18.600
502.2 18.700
524.2 18.900
524.2 19.400
524.2 20.200
524.2 20.200
524.2 21.000
Method Reported
Value
502.2 22.100
502.2 26.600
524.2 26.900
502.2 29.700
524.2 47.700




Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-195
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 38
True Value: 17.9 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 11.800
502.2 13.900
502.2 13.900
502.2 14.000
502.2 14.300
other 14.600
502.2 15.100
524.2 15.200
524.2 15.600
Method Reported
Value
502.2 15.700
524.2 15.800
524.2 16.400
524.2 16.400
502.2 16.400
524.2 16.500
524.2 16.500
524.2 16.600
502.2 16.700
Method Reported
Value
524.2 16.900
502.2 16.900
524.2 17.200
524.2 17.600
other 17.700
502.2 17.770
524.2 18.100
524.2 18.100
524.2 18.200
Method Reported
Value
524.2 18.200
524.2 18.200
other 18.300
524.2 18.500
502.2 18.600
524.2 18.900
524.2 19.000
502.2 19.500
524.2 19.500
Method Reported
Value
524.2 19.500
524.2 19.560
524.2 19.770
502.2 20.000
502.2 20.100
524.2 20.200
502.2 20.700
502.2 20.700
524.2 21.100
Method Reported
Value
502.2 21.400
502.2 21.400
524.2 21.600
524.2 22.400
524.2 22.900
524.2 24.100
524.2 24.200
524.2 26.900
524.2 28.300
Water Study: 39
True Value: 6. 19 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 4.720
502.2 4.740
502.2 4.800
524.2 5.020
524.2 5.140
524.2 5.320
502.2 5.390
other 5.620
Method Reported
Value
524.2 5.690
502.2 5.790
524.2 5.890
524.2 6.070
524.2 6.090
524.2 6.200
524.2 6.260
502.2 6.400
Method Reported
Value
524.2 6.410
524.2 6.600
524.2 6.610
502.2 6.680
524.2 6.730
524.2 6.730
524.2 6.750
524.2 6.770
Method Reported
Value
524.2 6.780
524.2 6.800
502.2 6.810
502.2 6.820
524.2 6.900
524.2 7.090
502.2 7.100
502.2 7.180
Method Reported
Value
524.2 7.200
502.2 7.240
524.2 7.300
502.2 7.330
524.2 7.460
524.2 7.500
524.2 7.530
524.2 7.670
Method Reported
Value
524.2 8.040
502.2 9.820
524.2 9.830
524.2 16.500
524.2 16.540



Water Study: 40
True Value: 27.2 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 6.280
524.2 19.200
524.2 19.400
524.2 21.300
502.2 22.200
502.2 22.300
502.2 23.000
524.2 23.200
524.2 23.200
524.2 24.000
Method Reported
Value
524.2 24.040
524.2 24.200
524.2 24.400
524.2 24.800
502.2 25.000
other 25.300
524.2 25.400
524.2 25.900
524.2 25.900
502.2 26.100
Method Reported
Value
524.2 26.100
524.2 26.100
other 26.100
524.2 26.300
524.2 26.400
524.2 26.900
524.2 26.900
502.2 27.000
524.2 27.000
524.2 27.000
Method Reported
Value
524.2 27.100
502.2 27.300
524.2 27.400
502.2 27.500
524.2 27.500
502.2 28.000
524.2 28.300
524.2 28.400
524.2 28.500
other 28.900
Method Reported
Value
502.2 29.000
524.2 29.200
502.2 29.200
524.2 29.200
524.2 30.200
502.2 30.400
502.2 30.400
524.2 30.700
524.2 31.000
524.2 31.100
Method Reported
Value
524.2 31.300
524.2 32.800
502.2 33.200
524.2 34.900
524.2 35.000
524.2 36.300
524.2 46.200
502.2 47.100


Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-196
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 41
True Value: 22.3 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 15.700
524.2 16.000
502.2 17.400
524.2 18.200
524.2 19.100
502.2 19.600
524.2 20.100
Method Reported
Value
524.2 21.120
other 21.300
524.2 21.300
502.2 21.800
502.2 22.900
524.2 22.900
502.2 23.000
Method Reported
Value
524.2 23.000
524.2 23.300
524.2 23.300
524.2 23.400
524.2 23.600
502.2 23.800
524.2 23.800
Method Reported
Value
524.2 23.900
502.2 24.000
502.2 24.200
524.2 24.900
524.2 25.000
524.2 25.100
524.2 25.900
Method Reported
Value
524.2 25.990
502.2 26.200
524.2 26.500
524.2 26.800
524.2 27.000
524.2 27.400
524.2 28.000
Method Reported
Value
524.2 29.000
502.2 29.500
524.2 29.800
524.2 33.600
502.2 35.700
524.2 45.100

Total Xylenes
Water Study: 24
True Value: 14.0 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 5.600
524.2 6.330
524.2 8.350
other 9.900
503.1 10.200
524.2 10.500
524.2 11.400
502.2 12.200
Method Reported
Value
524.2 12.400
524.1 12.500
502.2 12.500
524.1 12.700
502.2 12.800
524.2 12.900
502.2 12.910
524.2 13.010
Method Reported
Value
524.1 13.060
524.2 13.230
502.2 13.300
524.2 13.400
502.2 13.400
502.2 13.400
524.2 13.400
502.2 13.500
Method Reported
Value
524.2 13.600
524.2 13.600
524.2 13.800
502.2 14.000
502.2 14.400
524.2 14.400
524.2 14.500
other 14.530
Method Reported
Value
503.1 14.700
524.1 14.750
502.2 14.900
524.2 15.000
502.2 15.000
502.2 15.100
503.1 15.500
502.2 15.800
Method Reported
Value
524.2 16.000
524.2 16.700
524.2 17.700
503.1 20.200
other 24.400



Water Study: 25
True Value: 12.5 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
other 9.520
other 9.700
524.2 10.800
524.2 11.150
502.2 11.200
503.1 11.200
Method Reported
Value
502.2 11.300
502.2 11.300
502.2 11.500
502.2 11.500
other 11.510
502.2 11.520
Method Reported
Value
502.2 11.750
502.2 11.900
502.2 12.000
524.2 12.100
524.2 12.200
524.2 12.330
Method Reported
Value
524.1 12.400
524.1 12.600
502.2 12.800
502.2 13.000
other 13.100
503.1 13.200
Method Reported
Value
524.2 13.400
524.2 13.570
524.1 13.600
524.2 13.990
502.2 14.000
502.2 14.100
Method Reported
Value
502.2 14.300
other 17.000
other 18.200



Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-197
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 27
True Value: 8.45 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 6.700
524.2 6.800
other 7.410
503.1 7.510
524.2 7.530
502.2 7.600
Method Reported
Value
502.2 7.780
502.2 7.790
502.2 7.890
502.2 7.940
502.2 7.980
502.2 8.000
Method Reported
Value
502.2 8.000
502.2 8.040
524.2 8.170
524.1 8.210
502.2 8.270
other 8.530
Method Reported
Value
524.2 8.600
524.1 8.610
524.2 8.630
524.2 8.880
524.2 8.900
502.2 8.940
Method Reported
Value
502.2 8.960
524.2 8.990
524.1 9.240
502.2 9.490
502.2 9.600
524.2 9.800
Method Reported
Value
524.2 10.610
502.2 24.840




Water Study: 29
True Value: 12.0 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
other 2.890
524.2 9.220
502.2 9.691
502.2 10.100
524.2 10.800
other 10.800
Method Reported
Value
502.2 10.900
524.2 10.990
524.1 11.000
524.1 11.100
other 11.300
524.2 11.500
Method Reported
Value
502.2 11.520
502.2 11.600
524.2 11.900
502.2 11.900
502.2 12.000
524.2 12.000
Method Reported
Value
502.2 12.000
524.2 12.000
524.2 12.100
503.1 12.100
502.2 12.400
502.2 12.400
Method Reported
Value
524.2 12.600
502.2 12.800
524.2 12.800
502.2 13.190
524.2 13.900
other 14.040
Method Reported
Value
502.2 14.100
502.2 14.400
524.2 16.400
524.2 18.280


Water Study: 30
True Value: 15.0 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 7.740
524.2 9.760
524.2 11.200
524.2 11.800
524.2 12.600
other 12.600
524.2 12.800
502.2 13.200
502.2 13.300
524.1 13.350
Method Reported
Value
524.2 13.400
502.2 13.470
502.2 13.600
503.1 13.600
524.2 13.600
524.2 13.800
524.2 13.840
502.2 13.900
502.2 13.900
524.2 14.000
Method Reported
Value
502.2 14.100
502.2 14.100
502.2 14.200
502.2 14.200
502.2 14.200
524.2 14.300
524.2 14.390
524.2 14.600
524.2 14.600
524.1 14.600
Method Reported
Value
503.1 14.600
524.2 14.600
502.2 14.800
502.2 14.900
524.2 15.000
502.2 15.100
other 15.150
502.2 15.300
524.1 15.400
524.2 15.470
Method Reported
Value
524.2 15.600
other 15.600
502.2 15.600
524.2 15.600
524.2 15.600
524.2 15.700
524.1 15.700
502.2 15.700
524.2 15.800
524.2 16.200
Method Reported
Value
502.2 16.200
524.2 16.800
502.2 17.000
524.2 18.100
524.2 18.200
524.2 20.600
502.2 27.400
524.2 35.300
other 37.000

Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-198
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 31
True Value: 13.2 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
other 6.570
524.2 10.000
524.2 11.000
502.2 11.010
524.1 11.500
524.2 11.600
524.2 11.600
Method Reported
Value
502.2 11.900
502.2 12.000
502.2 12.100
524.2 12.200
524.2 12.300
524.2 12.350
503.1 12.400
Method Reported
Value
503.1 12.400
524.2 12.400
502.2 12.500
524.2 12.500
524.2 12.700
503.1 12.700
524.2 12.700
Method Reported
Value
502.2 12.700
524.2 12.800
524.2 12.900
502.2 13.000
502.1 13.000
524.2 13.200
502.2 13.300
Method Reported
Value
524.2 13.700
524.2 13.840
502.2 14.300
524.2 14.700
502.2 14.700
502.2 15.200
502.2 16.100
Method Reported
Value
524.2 16.990
524.2 25.800
502.2 28.600




Water Study: 32
True Value: 7.54 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 3.400
502.2 5.950
502.2 6.260
503.1 6.370
502.2 6.500
502.2 6.540
502.2 6.560
524.2 6.580
524.2 6.600
524.2 6.620
502.2 6.620
Method Reported
Value
524.2 6.660
other 6.800
502.2 6.840
502.2 6.880
524.2 6.890
502.2 6.930
524.2 6.970
502.2 6.990
502.2 7.000
other 7.000
524.2 7.000
Method Reported
Value
524.2 7.090
524.2 7.100
502.2 7.130
other 7.160
524.1 7.200
502.1 7.200
524.2 7.260
502.2 7.290
502.2 7.330
502.2 7.330
524.2 7.400
Method Reported
Value
502.2 7.440
502.2 7.450
503.1 7.500
524.2 7.500
524.2 7.510
524.2 7.580
524.2 7.580
524.2 7.600
502.2 7.600
524.2 7.600
524.2 7.670
Method Reported
Value
524.2 7.700
502.2 7.850
524.2 7.850
524.2 7.880
524.2 7.976
502.2 8.070
524.2 8.110
524.2 8.180
524.2 8.220
524.2 8.620
524.2 8.980
Method Reported
Value
524.2 9.250
502.2 9.260
502.2 9.300
524.2 9.950
524.2 17.200
524.2 18.600





Water Study: 33
True Value: 11.6 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 3.900
502.2 9.310
524.2 9.600
524.1 9.670
502.2 10.100
524.2 10.110
Method Reported
Value
524.2 10.300
524.2 10.380
502.2 10.590
524.2 10.600
other 10.600
other 10.670
Method Reported
Value
502.2 10.700
502.2 10.800
502.2 10.900
502.2 11.080
524.2 11.200
502.2 11.300
Method Reported
Value
502.2 11.300
502.2 11.600
502.1 11.700
524.2 11.700
524.2 11.800
524.2 11.900
Method Reported
Value
524.2 12.400
502.2 12.500
502.2 12.600
524.2 12.630
524.2 12.700
524.2 12.800
Method Reported
Value
502.2 13.300
502.2 13.800
502.1 14.200
502.2 26.900


Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-199
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 34
True Value: 13.1 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 4.730
524.2 6.580
524.2 8.620
524.2 10.600
524.1 10.900
502.2 11.300
502.2 11.400
524.1 11.500
502.2 11.500
524.2 11.700
Method Reported
Value
524.2 11.800
502.2 11.800
524.2 11.900
502.2 11.900
other 12.000
524.2 12.100
524.2 12.100
502.2 12.200
524.2 12.400
502.2 12.500
Method Reported
Value
502.2 12.500
524.2 12.600
502.2 12.600
524.2 12.600
524.2 12.600
502.2 12.700
other 12.700
524.2 12.740
524.2 12.800
502.2 12.800
Method Reported
Value
524.2 12.800
524.2 12.900
502.2 12.900
502.2 12.900
502.2 12.900
524.2 13.050
524.2 13.100
524.2 13.200
524.2 13.200
502.2 13.200
Method Reported
Value
524.2 13.200
524.2 13.200
502.2 13.200
524.2 13.200
524.2 13.300
502.2 13.300
503.1 13.400
524.2 13.700
502.2 13.700
524.2 13.700
Method Reported
Value
502.2 13.700
502.2 13.800
524.2 13.800
524.2 13.900
524.2 13.960
502.2 14.100
502.2 14.500
502.2 16.300
524.2 17.080
502.2 27.200
Water Study: 35
True Value: 17.4 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 7.930
524.2 8.530
524.2 14.100
502.2 14.600
524.2 15.070
524.2 15.200
502.2 15.300
Method Reported
Value
524.2 16.000
502.2 16.500
524.2 16.700
524.2 16.700
524.2 16.800
502.2 16.800
502.2 16.900
Method Reported
Value
524.2 17.000
other 17.010
524.2 17.200
524.2 17.300
502.2 17.300
524.2 17.500
502.2 17.840
Method Reported
Value
other 18.000
524.2 18.000
524.2 18.000
524.2 18.000
502.2 18.200
502.2 18.300
524.2 18.300
Method Reported
Value
524.2 18.400
524.2 18.400
524.2 18.800
502.2 18.870
502.2 19.900
502.2 20.400
524.2 20.600
Method Reported
Value
524.2 20.810
502.2 23.000





Water Study: 36
True Value: 10.4 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 8.280
502.2 8.790
524.2 8.840
502.2 8.970
other 9.300
502.2 9.440
524.2 9.580
502.2 9.610
524.2 9.700
524.2 9.700
524.2 9.730
Method Reported
Value
524.2 9.800
524.2 9.800
524.2 9.810
524.2 9.860
524.2 9.870
524.2 9.890
502.2 9.910
524.2 9.940
502.2 9.990
502.2 10.100
524.2 10.100
Method Reported
Value
524.2 10.200
502.2 10.300
502.2 10.300
502.2 10.300
524.2 10.300
524.2 10.400
524.2 10.400
other 10.500
524.2 10.500
524.2 10.500
524.2 10.500
Method Reported
Value
524.2 10.500
502.2 10.600
524.2 10.600
502.2 10.600
502.2 10.600
524.2 10.760
502.2 10.800
524.2 10.800
524.2 10.840
524.2 10.900
502.2 11.000
Method Reported
Value
other 11.000
502.2 11.100
other 11.100
524.2 11.100
502.2 11.200
502.2 11.300
502.2 11.300
524.2 11.300
524.2 11.300
524.2 11.400
524.2 11.530
Method Reported
Value
524.2 11.900
502.2 12.000
524.2 12.100
524.2 12.420
502.2 13.300
524.2 14.500





Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-200
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 37
True Value: 12.9 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
502.2 5.300
524.2 9.720
524.2 11.100
524.2 11.200
other 11.400
524.2 11.400
524.2 11.600
524.2 11.900
502.2 12.000
Method Reported
Value
502.2 12.100
502.2 12.100
502.2 12.200
524.2 12.200
502.2 12.400
524.2 12.600
502.2 12.600
524.2 12.600
524.2 12.690
Method Reported
Value
524.2 12.800
502.2 12.800
502.2 12.900
502.2 12.900
502.2 13.000
other 13.000
524.2 13.000
502.2 13.100
524.2 13.100
Method Reported
Value
502.2 13.200
502.2 13.300
524.2 13.400
524.2 13.460
524.2 13.500
524.2 13.600
502.2 13.600
other 13.600
524.2 13.600
Method Reported
Value
502.2 13.700
524.2 13.800
524.2 13.800
524.2 13.880
524.2 14.000
502.2 14.400
502 14.500
524.2 14.700
524 14.740
Method Reported
Value
524.2 16.300
524.2 16.600
524.2 17.300
524.2 17.400





Water Study: 38
True Value: 22.9 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 18.100
524.2 18.300
524.2 18.500
524.2 19.400
524.2 19.500
502.2 19.520
524.2 19.700
502.2 20.100
524.2 20.400
524.2 20.600
Method Reported
Value
524.2 20.600
524.2 20.900
524.2 21.000
502.2 21.200
524.2 21.500
other 21.700
other 21.800
other 22.300
524.2 22.300
524.2 22.400
Method Reported
Value
524.2 22.600
524.2 22.630
502.2 22.900
524.2 22.900
524.2 22.960
524.2 23.000
524.2 23.000
502.2 23.000
502.2 23.000
524.2 23.100
Method Reported
Value
502.2 23.200
524.2 23.200
524.2 23.300
524.2 23.300
524.2 23.300
502.2 23.500
502.2 23.500
502.2 23.700
524.2 23.800
524.2 24.000
Method Reported
Value
502 24.300
524.2 24.300
524.2 24.400
502.2 24.500
502.2 24.600
502.2 24.800
502.2 24.800
524.2 24.800
502.2 24.900
502.2 24.900
Method Reported
Value
524.2 25.200
524.2 25.200
502.2 26.600
524.2 26.800
524.2 28.100
524.2 29.700




Water Study: 39
True Value: 24.4 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 13.800
502.2 14.200
524.2 19.300
524.2 20.200
524.2 20.900
524.2 21.600
524.2 22.200
502.2 22.300
Method Reported
Value
524.2 22.500
502.2 22.500
524.2 22.700
other 22.800
524.2 22.900
502.2 23.200
524.2 23.300
524.2 23.300
Method Reported
Value
524.2 23.700
524.2 23.700
502.2 23.900
502.2 23.900
524.2 24.000
502.2 24.200
524.2 24.400
502.2 24.500
Method Reported
Value
502.2 24.500
524.2 24.500
524.2 24.620
524.2 24.700
524.2 24.800
524.2 25.100
524.2 25.200
502.2 25.300
Method Reported
Value
524.2 25.600
524.2 25.700
502.2 25.700
524.2 26.200
524.2 26.400
524.2 26.800
524.2 27.500
524.2 28.000
Method Reported
Value
524.2 28.200
502.2 28.300
502.2 30.200
524.2 45.760




Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-201
Final - March 2003

-------
Water Study: 40
True Value: 30.3 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 16.100
524.2 23.400
524.2 24.000
502.2 24.800
524.2 24.800
524.2 25.800
502.2 26.800
524.2 26.800
524.2 27.000
524.2 27.400
Method Reported
Value
other 27.800
524.2 28.000
524.2 28.200
524.2 28.500
other 28.500
502.2 28.600
524.2 28.700
524.2 28.800
524.2 28.950
524.2 29.000
Method Reported
Value
524.2 29.100
524.2 29.200
502.2 29.400
524.2 29.500
502.2 29.500
524.2 29.700
502.2 29.800
524.2 29.800
524.2 29.800
524.2 29.900
Method Reported
Value
524.2 30.000
524.2 30.100
other 30.100
502.2 30.100
502.2 30.200
524 30.200
524.2 30.300
524.2 30.300
524.2 30.600
524.2 30.900
Method Reported
Value
502.2 31.100
524.2 31.200
502.2 31.400
524.2 31.700
524.2 31.800
524.2 32.100
502.2 32.300
502.2 32.400
524.2 32.600
524.2 32.700
Method Reported
Value
502.2 32.800
524.2 33.400
502.2 33.600
524.2 33.600
524.2 33.700
502.2 34.500
524.2 37.000
524.2 38.100


Water Study: 41
True Value: 30.8 ug/L
Method Reported
Value
524.2 25.900
524.2 26.600
524.2 26.700
524.2 27.600
524.2 27.700
502.2 27.800
502.2 28.300
524.2 28.400
Method Reported
Value
524.2 28.500
524.2 28.800
502.2 28.900
502.2 30.000
524.2 30.100
524.2 30.100
524.2 30.100
502.2 30.300
Method Reported
Value
502.2 30.600
524.2 30.600
524.2 30.700
other 30.700
524.2 30.800
524.2 30.800
524.2 30.900
524.2 31.000
Method Reported
Value
524.2 31.000
524.2 31.130
502.2 31.200
502.2 31.200
524.2 31.300
524.2 31.600
524.2 31.700
502.2 31.700
Method Reported
Value
524.2 31.760
other 31.800
502.2 31.800
524.2 32.200
524.2 32.500
502.2 33.000
524.2 33.600
524.2 34.000
Method Reported
Value
524.2 34.000
502.2 34.900
524.2 44.300





Methods Support Document for Six-Year Review
B-202
Final - March 2003

-------

-------
                                                             EPA 815-R-03-003

                                        Analytical Feasibility  Support  Document
for the  Six-Year Review of Existing National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
                         (Reassessment of Feasibility for Chemical Contaminants)

-------