United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
4607
EPA-815-R-99-006
DRAFT- Aoril 1999
xvEPA
Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring Regulatioj
Integrated Gqj
Document
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
-------
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Foreword
This document provides guidance and explains the responsibilities for the Primacy Jiffies and the
large Public Water Systems (serving greater than 10,000 people) regarding the imMementation of
the revised Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (UCMR). Jfcis dgpment is written
for the people at the agency, water system, or laboratory wjio wtil JSBls1$msible for UCMR
Program planning, implementation, and oversight.
The UCMR has a new list of contaminants and changes
(PWSs) that must conduct monitoring, and the frequenc '
regulatory actions also include the cancellation of unre
PWSs serving 10,000 or fewer people that is required ur3
monitoring program. The data collected in the UCMR wr.
the Contaminant Candidate List (CCL), to support the A<
not to regulate a contaminant, and to continue develop ofSther
program is one of the cornerstones of the sound science^agproach ti
that is an aim of the 1996 SDWA Amendments.
Under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SJMA)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPAJifrequir
program for unregulated contammantsjrEPA im1
the numpgr oUBOiaagafater sys
id scheduleibr mor "
tted cdfrfaminant mom^^g^Tsmall
xisting unregulateonSontaminant
.o support the development of
[determination of whether or
The revised monitoring
:g water regulation
f996, §1445(a)(2)(A), the
'regulations for a monitoring
,._-„_ 0 issue|ageyised list of contaminants to be
monitored by August 1999. In the pasffWegulared contaminant monitoring has been performed
according to the program described^^CFiy^l.40. The 1996 SDWA Amendments direct a
substantially revised Unregulated^bntamin^raMonitorin'f Regulation.
-------
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Disclaimers
This is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute U.S. Enviror
Agency policy. Mention of trade names or commercial products does nqj constit
or recommendation for use.
This guidance document is designed to implement national j
The document does not, however, substitute for the SI
document a regulation itself. Thus, it cannot impose lega
or the regulated community, and may not apply
circumstances. EPA and State decisions makers retain 1
by-case basis that differs from this guidance where appre
the future.
Protection
idorsement
case-
dancein
con
orEP
-binding
partic
re
situatio
to adoptapp
A may change
tn
-------
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
IV
-------
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Acknowledgements
-------
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Table of Contents
Foreword
Disclaimers
Acknowledgements
Section 1. Introduction
1.1 Purpose
1.2 Overview of UCMR
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
Section 2. General Monitoring Requirements
Assessment Monitoring
Screening Survey
Pre-Screen Testing
7
7
10
11
12
14
2.6.1
2.6.2
2.6.3
2.6.4
17
18
18
20
20
Monitoring of Routinely Tested Water Quality
Quality Control Requirements for Sampling
Quality Control Requirements for,Laboratories ... 16
Minimum Reporting Lev^F(MR1L "*
Calibration jf?T... ~""
2.6.2.1 Calibratiott*Verification
Method DetectiontLimit (MDL)
Laboratory Reaglnt (Method) Bl
2.6.4.1 FieldjKlagent Blink (Stopping Blank or Travel Blank) 21
Quality Control (QC^Sample j£ 22
Sample.Matrix SpikeTCMS^ancLMatrix Spike Duplicate (MSD) 22
InternailStandard . 22
_ "HfTfi** »'*«*l*_ , - ^iSliWlWB-*' >»>.
Surrogate Standard . rFffT. 22
Confirmation^ 23
.6.9.1 Gas Chromatographic (GC) Methods 23
:&9.2 Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS)
ratfinnation *$$'. 23
2ijS*9.3'Mass Spectrometry (MS) Methods 23
2.6.10 ^daitioh'al Quality Controls 23
3. State (Primacy Agency) Responsibilities 25
3.1 General Responsibilities of the State 25
3.1.1 jpimacy Revision 25
3.1.2jSReporting Requirements for Primacy Agencies 25
Enforcement 26
Other Tasks 26
)evelopment of State Plans 26
3.2.1 Selection of Systems Serving 10,000 or Fewer People 26
3.2.2 Nominations for Pre-Screen Testing 27
3.2.3 Most Vulnerable Sampling Times 27
3.2.4 Notification of Public Water Systems 27
Vll
-------
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
3.3
3.4
Table of Contents
(continued)
Implementation of UCMR for Small Systems
3.3.1 Assessment Monitoring
3.3.2 Screening Survey
3.3.3 Pre-Screen Testing
3.3.4 Index Systems
Implementation of UCMR for Large Sys
3.4.1 Assessment Monitoring
3.4.2 Screening Survey
3.4.3 Pre-Screen Testing
3.4.4 Other Authorities
3.4.4.1 State Waivers for ContaminantsMonitore
3.4.4.2 Governors' Petition to AddflloSaminants i
Section 4. Reporting Requirements
Section 5. Additional Informatio
5.1 Who to Contact wi
5.2 Related Guidance*
vm
-------
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
List of Figures
Figure 1. Proposed Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Approach .
Figure 2. Proposed Implementation Timeline of UCMR and
ListofTabli
Table 1.
Table 2.
Table 3.
Table 4.
Table 5.
Table 6.
Table 7.
Table 8.
UCMR List 1 (1999) Contaminants
UCMR List 2 (1999) Contaminants
UCMR List 3 (1999) Contaminants
Analytes Approved for Water Quality Parajneters
UCMR Analytical Methods and —»—-
Frequency Requirements for
Frequency Requirements for Anal;, ..._.w
Unregulated Contaminant Monillfnng Regu
t (Method) Blanks 21
ig Requirements 32
Appendi:
Appendix
Appendix C
Appendix
Appendi
A-l
B-l
ent Analytical Methods for
taminants C-l
of Method Detection Limits D-l
in Representative Sample By State E-l
-------
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
iderthe 1996
; water systems
[Ss serving 10,000
^overview of 1
Section 1. Introduction
1.1 Purpose
The new Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (UC
Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), requires that all
(PWSs) serving greater than 10,000 people and a statistical sameling o:
or fewer people monitor for unregulated contaminants. Thi^amance pi
UCMR Program and explains the responsibilities of Statesjjnd PWSs i
1.2 Overview of UCMR
EPA currently regulates many contaminants foun^t^^x^mg water that pose a risk to
human health. There are, however, other potential contamman^^^^are not regulated because
of the lack of scientific evidence of their occurrence or healtM^^^too address the lack of
information on the occurrence of some of rnesej:onf|inmants, E^^^^spromulgated the new
UCMR, the first monitoring cycle of which wilLl
CFR 141.35, 141.40, and 142.15(c)(3)). Thgjfiew
contaminant monitoring regulation. EPAjpublishet
Federal Register (64 FR 1493), separate from the UJ3MR re
unregulated contamhiant monitoring forpmall systems und
monitoring program. This rule, affecting upjof3,400 P, , .
However, the new UCMR modifiejfmat suspension of Dronitoring by small systems through its
requirements for a representativeisample ofmose system^ in the future.
regulatia
rataminani
lonitore
is codified under 40
replace the current unregulated
ule in the January 8, 1999
t supends the third round of
xisting unregulated contaminant
, became effective March 9, 1999.
lishes a monjFonngjprogram to determine the occurrence of selected
*~" ^ .g water**The regulation includes a new list of unregulated
,s.an approach for selecting a statistical sampling of PWSs serving
ile, and information on the frequency and schedule of monitoring. The
$&ts,L . _ ^.s^.-.ujt^^jss^ - _ *• J _ _ °
Th(
unregul
com
10,000 or fe"... ^,--, :. 4 , „
unregulated containmz^TOonitorin^fegulation data collected under this rule will be used to support:
(1) the develot)meS^^^^feictive evolution of the Contaminant Candidate List (CCL); (2) the EPA
Admimstraror s deterrn*mSon*bf whether to regulate a listed unregulated contaminant; and (3) future
regulatoiydevelopmen
In addition, if thejunregulated contaminant is determined to have significant occurrence and
hellfli effects, EPA wilfee the results: (1) as part of an exposure assessment; (2) for establishing
bJSeSne health effects and economic analyses; (3) for contaminant co-occurrence analysis; and (4)
atment technology evaluation, including contaminant source management. Results may
:ontaminants have adequately significant occurrence to initiate additional
effects and treatment technology. The data may also guide future source water
fecboitertorts. Finally, the information collected on the occurrence of unregulated contaminants
will be included in the National Contaminant Occurrence Database (NCOD) and will be made
available to the public.
For all considered contaminants, EPA evaluated the availability of analytical methods
published by EPA and voluntary consensus standard organizations such as American Society for
-------
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Testing and Materials (ASTM), the Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) and the
American Public Health Association (APHA). Based on the availability of analytical methods for
each unregulated contaminant, EPA has developed a three component approach for the monitoring
program put in place by the UCMR. The first component is referred to as " AssessmeolMonitoring,"
the second as the "Screening Survey," and the third as "Pre-Screen Jejstingj|FEach of these
components is discussed in more detail below.
Assessment Monitoring will be conducted to samjajpand
Contaminants, the 11 unregulated contaminants (10 chemical and 1
analytical methods are currently available. These contaminants will bmonito
serving more than 10,000 people) community water ^^ms^'WS) and
community water systems (NTNCWS) that do not purch^^teejgwater from anot
monitoring must be conducted over a period of 1 year dunn^SM,to 2003.
non-
. This
Also participating in Assessment Monitoring
representative sample of 800 small CWSs and NTNC
For the selected small systems, one-third will be J
years during 2001 to 2003. EPA will s
and will pay for the cost of shipping and
Amendments. All systems are responsiblejoir reporti
the data, EPA will report electronically folfhe smallst
the UCMR.
ically selected, national
or fewer people).
of the 3 monitoring
SSons to collect the samples
as required by the 1996 SDWA
lefState. After their review of
Switch it is paying for testing under
Screening Surveys will Jjj|^£bnducteaf to sarnpje and analyze for the List 2 (1999)
Contaminants, the 14 unregulatg^hemica^^ntarrunants for which EPA is currently refining
analytical methods. These contaminants wl^^^^^Med by a subset of approximately 600 large
and smallsconductinssssment Momrormg?Monitoring for the List 2(1 999) Contaminants
oflhlfUCMR will occur during 2 years of the UCMR
the fu*sgo:uC)f 300 PWSs sampling in 200 land 2002, and a second group
^will supply small systems with instructions to collect the
cost of shi|jpihg and analyzing these samples. Large PWSs will collect
tolm*EPA-approved laboratory, and will pay the shipping and
responsible for reporting results to the State. Again, EPA will
samples and
their own
analyticaJLcosts.
report for small systernsor^rhicrr it is paying for testing.
Pre-Screen Testing will be conducted to sample and analy2e for the List 3 (1999)
CoJEminants, the unregulated 7 microbiological contaminants for which analytical methods are still •
fmgi developed. These contaminants will be monitored by up to 200 of the most vulnerable
'**" (large andjjrnall) which EPA will select from the nationwide pool of State-identified
le^&y^stemsr The States will nominate vulnerable systems based on system vulnerability
cfiaracteristicisiand a proportional selection of large and small systems provided by EPA.
Pre-Screen Testing will assess analytical methods and provide an initial indication of the
occurrence of these emerging unregulated microbiological contaminants. Sampling and analysis for
these contaminants will most likely occur in the later years of the 5-year UCMR cycle. EPA will
supply all systems with instructions and information regarding systems' Pre-Screen Testing
responsibilities. For small systems, an EPA contractor will collect the samples and EPA will pay
-------
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
for the cost of sample shipping and analysis. Large systems will collect their own samples, submit
the samples to an EPA-approved laboratory, and will pay the sample shipping and analytical costs.
All systems are responsible for reporting results to the State. EPA will report for small systems.
EPA will also select up to 30 of the 800 national representative sysrems conducting
Assessment Monitoring to be "Index" systems. All Index Systems will n^SmtoBKv all List 2 (1999)
and List 3 (1999) Contaminants for each year of the 5-year cycle after EPA has revised the UCMR
by specifying the analytical methods and sampling procedures for those contaminants. EPA will
conduct the sampling for these systems and will pay for the costs of shipping and testing the
samples. The purpose of sampling for an extended period at these systems is to provide quality
assurance for the national representative sample, gather information on the temporal variability that
may be encountered during a monitoring cycle, and enhance EPA's understanding of small systems
so mat future regulatory provisions will more fully reflect the conditions under which small systems
operate.
Large systems will be required to electronically report their monitoring results to the primacy
agency within 10 days of their receipt from the laboratory. Small systems will also be responsible
for electronically reporting their monitoring results to the primacy agency, but it is expected that
many small systems will authorize the EPA approvedlaboratories to electronically report the results
directly to the primacy agency. The States are required, on a quarterly basis, to electronically report
the results and any other required data elements to EPA so that the results can be stored in and
analyzed through the NCOD.
Figures 1 and 2 provide a summary of the UCMR monitoring approach, illustrate the
interrelation of the UCMR Program components, and show the proposed timeline of UCMR
activities (some of the terms in the figures will be introduced later in this document). For
identification of terms used throughout this guidance document, see Appendix A (for a list of
acronyms) and Appendix B (for a list of definitions). Specific reporting requirements for systems
and States are identified in Section 5.
A more complete review of the UCMR Program is summarized in the Preamble to the
UCMR (CITE). UCMR technical and supporting documents are available from the EPA Water
Docket, telephone (202) 260-3027, Docket Number W-98-02. General information can also be
obtained from the EPA Safe Drinking Water Hotline, telephone (800) 426-4791, or through the EPA
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water Internet Home page at http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw.
-------
-------
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
EPA UCMR
List
up to 30
contaminants
Assessment Monitoring
List 1 Contaminants
Quarterly for surface water
systems and 2 times 6
months apart for ground
water systems for 1 year,
during 2001-2003
All 2,800 large
systems
Representative
Sample of small
systems (800 of
65,600) identified
by EPA
Two Screening Surveys for
List 2 Contaminants
300 statistically selected
systems in each of 2 years
(2002 and 2003); same
frequency as Assessment
Monitoring
Pre-Screen Testing
List 3 Contaminants
up to 200 most vulnerable
systems, 2 times during 2004
7 or more Governors may petition EPA to
add contaminants to list
State may
apply to EPA
for
contaminant
monitoring
waiver
State
Monitoring
Plan
for
Representative
Sample
EPA Pays
for Small
Systems in
Plan and in
Pre-Screen
Testing
State may
waive
electronic
reporting for
PWS
PWS
Reporting
Electronically
20 Data
Elements
State
Reporting
Electronically
20 Data
Elements
Public
Notification,
Consumer
Confidence
Report
EPA
National
Contaminant
Occurrence
Database/
SDWIS-FED
Figure 1
Proposed Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring Approach
-------
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
^
1
UCMR (1999): IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES
UCMR Issued:
Guidance
Available
EPA
Laboratories
Operational
Representative
Sample selected
by EPA
National
Contaminant
Occurrence
Database
Operational
•
State Plans
Developed:
Inform EPA
andPWSs
Assessment Monitoring:
•^ List 1 (1999) Contaminants — >
All 2,774 Large and 800 Small PWSs
•
-
Index System Monitoring
Up to 30
Small PWSs (20
01-2005)
Screening Surveys:
•< List 2 (1999) Contaminants >
2 Groups of 300 La
Screening Survey
^ Grou
pi >
(2001 or 2002)
P re-Screen
States Speci
Vulnerable .
ng Testing:
fy w
Systems
rge and Small PWSs
Screening Survey
Gro
up 2 ^
(2003 or 2004)
Pre-Scree
List 3 (
^ Contan
n Testing:
1999)
linants -
Up to 200 Large ""
and Small PWSs
(2003 o
Analyz
and Dat
Next
Candidate _
Contaminant
List Issued
r2004)
s Results
a Quality
-»-NextUC\
.-.
fc-
[R List Issued
Figure 2
Proposed Implementation Timeline of
UCMR and Related Activities
-------
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Section 2. General Monitoring Requirements
This section lists the contaminants that must be monitored for in each c^
UCMR Program. Specific monitoring responsibilities, including who isj
the samples, what contaminants must be monitored, and whenjthe sami:
discussed in the following sections. In addition, the quality cgntEpl prc
and laboratory analysis are briefly outlined. The contaminamfnsts and <
will, unless otherwise noted, apply to all systems that are Jpected to
component.
onent of the
e for collecting
conducted, are
hthesamplir
2.1 Assessment Monitoring
The UCMR List 1 (1999) Contaminants, Hsted^iTabe^^fe analyzed as part of the
Assessment Monitoring component of the UCMR^Rragram begilnSg^^uary 1, 2001. State
activities related to specific monitoring resonsfediscusse^^^wuon 3.
Table 1. UCMR List 1 (1999) Contaminants jf
Contaminants
CAS #
Imimum
loved Analytical •£*"»"»»"
Me^s j-w
Sampling
Station
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
121-1
PA 525.21
EPTDS1
;BA 525.2
2.0
EPTDSb
DCPA
_.!, EPA 515.2,
992.32
1.0,ug/La
EPTDSb
DCPA di-
EP/TsiS.l, EPA 515.2,
-93, 992.32
EPTDS
72-55!-
EPA508, EPA 508.1,
EPA 525.2, D5812.96,
990.06
0.75
EPTDS1
$59-94-4
EPA 507, EPA 525.2,
D5475-93, 991.07
EPTDS'
Molinate
2212-67-1
EPA 507, EPA 525.2,
D5475-93, 991.07
0.87
EPTDS1
MTBE
1634-04-4
EPA 524.2, D5790.95,
SM6210D
5.0
EPTDSb
-------
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Contaminants
CAS #
Approved Analytical
Methods
Minimum
Reporting
Level
Sampling
Station
Nitrobenzene
98-95-3
EPA 524.2, D5790.95,
SM6210D
Terbacil
5902-51-2
EPA 507, EPA 525.2,
D5475-93, 991.07
Aeromonas
hydrophila
NAd
Membrane filter
(in review)
Presumpfrve
ix?r
. ^•BWSSiMir' .
longest residence time;
2) at a representative
site in distribution
system
Note: Abbreviations for analytical methods are: EPA= EPA Methods, D= A
Methods, 900 series = AOAC Methods. See App^ndSTEJor the comt
method.
, SM = APHA Standard
prence for each analytical
Minimum Reporting Level (MRL) determine!! by mulnpl^g^b^TO^w^Iiast sensitive method's minimum
detection limit (MDL=standard deviatiojptimes the^tudent^^^u^^r 99% confidence level with n-l
degrees of freedom), or when available^multiplyingjjy 5 the leastsensSive method's estimated detection limit
(EDL=concentration of compound yielding approximately a 5 tt|Fsignal to noise ratio or the calculated MDL,
whichever is greater). -stiH^ JijF jj
Entry Point to the Distribution System Jpff £f
MRL for VOCs determined by muftiplying bv|IO either the published MDL or 0.5 ug/L, whichever is greater.
The MDL of 0.5 ug/L (O.OOO^mg/L) was>serectedttKCoriform to the VOC MDL requirements of 40 CFR
141.24(f)(17)(E). * >Vt
CASjnumber is Not Applicable to microbiologica¥contaminants.
All large PWSs are requiredtojconduct Assessment Monitoring for the contaminants in Table
1. The owner/operator has the responsibility to select 1 year in the 3-year Assessment Monitoring
cycle to conduct the monitoring. Themonftoring must be done over a 12-month period during the
years from 20Q1^2p02^and 2003. "For chemical contaminants, systems using surface water or
ground water under the uafluertce of surface water must sample every 3 months during the 12-month
period. jjOrbund water systems must monitor two times 6 months apart in 1 year. One sampling
eventjOT both surface water and'ground water systems must occur during the most vulnerable time
of thefyear. The most vulnerable time of the year is May 1 - July 31 unless the EPA, State or Tribe
informs the system thatlthas selected a different time period as the system's most vulnerable. For
biological contaminants, the sampling frequency is two times 6 months apart for both surface
id ground water systems, with one of the sampling events during the most vulnerable time
^aE^whichiis also May 1 - July 31 unless the State selects a different time period). This
lining may be conducted, to the extent practical, at the same time as the required compliance
" or regulated contaminants. There are, however, additional UCMR quality control
requirements for sampling and testing.
The monitoring must be conducted for all 11 contaminants in Table 1, and sampling must
follow the quality control procedures outlined in Section 2 and the UCMR Analytical Methods and
Quality Control Manual (Sections 3 and 4) (EPA Water Docket Number W-98-02). Once the
8
-------
DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Ci>^ -
sample is collected, it must be sent to a laboratory for analysis. Systems that have certified ±
laboratories on site can do their own analytical work, but must follow the required methods and *
quality control requirements outlined hi Section 2. If samples are sent out to a laboratory, it is the |
responsibility of the owner/operator to use certified laboratories that conform to thjjmethods andj
quality control requirements approved hi the UCMR. Once the results ofthe labrenory tests are, *
received, the results must be sent to the State or, if the State does not ffirapaiBacv, to the EPA j
Regional Office (additional information on reporting requirements is jjafflgffpelow).
-------
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
2.2 Screening Survey
The UCMR List 2 (1999) Contaminants, listed in Table 2, must be monitored as part of the
Screening Survey component of the UCMR Program which will not be initiated untilHJA publishes
a revision to specify the analytical methods, minimum reporting levels andjamplinapanon forthese
contaminants. State activities related to specific monitoring responsibilitigSsge discussed in Section
3.
Table 2. UCMR List 2 (1999) Contaminants
Contaminant
CAS #
Anticipate
Analytical
Methods
Minimum
porting
tvel
1,2-diphenylhydrazine
122-66-7
EPA 525.2
EPTDSe
2-methyl-phenol
95-48-7
SPE/i
R
EPTDS(
2,4-dichlorophenol
120-83-2
Reserve
EPTDS'
2,4-dinitrophenol
51-28-5
ISPE/GC
Fedb
EPTDSc
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
Jj
Reservedb
EPTDS'
Acetochlor
34256-821
525.2 • Jj
Reserved1"
EPTDSc
Alachlor ESA
NAe If
.-a*, mf
Reserved5
EPTDS5
Reserved11
EPTDSc
EPA 525.2'
Reserved5
EPTDSc
Diuron
330-5451
SPE/HPLC/UV*
Reserved1"
EPTDS'
Fonofos
&22-9
EPA 525.2 •
Reserved1"
EPTDS'
Linun
SPE/HPLC/UV*
Reserved1"
EPTDS'
Prometon
Fl6%-18-0
EPA 525.2'
Reserved1"
EPTDS'
fos
13071-79-9
EPA525.2f
Reserved1"
EPTDS'
^Contaminantciffirently not listed as analyte In this method. Methods under current development in an attempt
naddjhjsiclwrtaminant to the scope of this method. See Appendix C for full method reference.
lined.
_ ?oint to the Distribution System.
Hlhbds development currently in progress to develop a solid phase extraction/gas chromatography/mass
spectrometry (SPE/GC/MS) method for the determination of this compound.
CAS number is Not Applicable.
Contaminant listed to be analyzed with this method; however, adequate sample preservation for this
contaminant is not provided by the procedures for this method. Preservation studies are currently being
developed for suitable sample preservation for this contaminant. See Appendix C for full method reference.
Methods development currently in progress to develop a solid phase extraction/high performance liquid
chromatography/ultraviolet (SPE/HPLC/UV) method for the determination of this compound.
10
-------
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
A small subset of large systems will be required to conduct Screening Survey monitoring
after EPA revises the regulation to the specify the analytical methods, Tnininnim reporting levels and
lytical methods
^r analysis. The
|ble2. Sampl
jtheybecc
sampling station for these contaminants. The State or EPA will notify systems that have been
selected to participate in a Screening Survey and inform systems of the laboratorAfrp which the
samples must be sent. The owner/operator is responsible for collecting the^amplesjprtne Screening
Survey and bearing the cost of the sample analysis. Depending on the:
development, samples will either be sent to EPA approved labor
contaminants that must be monitored as part of the Screeningj^s^ey;
and quality control requirements for the List 2 (1999) contafBjnants will 1
available.
23 Pre-Screen Testing
The UCMR List 3 (1999) Contaminants, listed in^
by systems that are selected to participate in the Pre-Screei
EPA publishes a revision to the specify the analyticafrnethdc
sampling station for these contaminants. StatejLaetivities ref
responsibilities are discussed in Section 3.
be included for monitoring
will not be initiated until
reporting levels and
specific monitoring
Table 3. UCMR List 3 (1999) Contaminants
Contaminant
Anticipated
Analytical
Methods
Minijnunr
Reporting Level
rfSHU*
Anticipated
Sampling Location
Adenoviruses
TBD1
D1
TBD1
Caliciviru
TBD1
TBD1
TBD1
Coxsackievirases!
TBD1
TBD1
Cyanobacteria, atgaefandltoxins
TBD1
TBD1
Echoviruses
TBD1
TBD1
Helicobacter pylori
TBD1
TBD1
TBD1
Micrqsporidia
TBD1
TBD1
TBD1
To Be Determined
subset of large systems will be required to participate in the Pre-Screen Testing after
ses thejegtSation to the specify the analytical methods, minimum reporting levels and
these contaminants. The State or EPA will notify systems that have been
selecteojparcipate in a Pre-Screen Testing and will inform the systems of the EPA-approved
laboratory to which samples must be sent. The owner/operator is responsible for collecting the
samples and bearing the cost of the sample analyses. Samples will be sent to EPA-designated
laboratories for analyses. The contaminants that must be monitored as part of the Pre-Screen
Testing are listed hi Table 3. Sampling and quality control requirements for the Table 3
contaminants will be specified as they become available.
11
-------
2.4
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Monitoring of Routinely Tested Water Quality Parameters
The chemical and physical parameters included in Table 4, which are routinely tested for by
many water systems, are important indicators of water quality. The presence ofjtese indicator
parameters often correlates with contaminant occurrence in drinking water or sowes of drinking
water. Systems must report data on these parameters with their required ll^O^jgonitoring results.
Table 4. Analytes Approved for Water Quality Parameters
Analyte
EPA Method
pH
150.1*
150.2*
Turbidity
180.14'
I Method 2 *f
Temperature
Free Residual Chlorine
4500-C1
Total Residual Chlorine
4500-CJpb
450JSfPEd
b
sasr
DO-C1G"
?500-ClIb
Chlorine Dn
Residual
4500-ClO2Cb
4500-C102Db
4500-ClO2Eb
Ozone Residua:
-Ij^EJj)*-
4500-O,Bb
. Jthods 150.1 andf^QSIIrlivailable from EPA, NERL, 26 W. Martin Luther King Dr., Cincinnati, Ohio
15268. The identicalnlj^dfare also in Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes, EPA-600/4-79-
020, March 1983, avallaBle from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS), U.S. Department of
Commerce, 5285 PoWRoyal Rd., Springfield, Virginia 22161, PB84-128677. The NTIS toll-free number is
800-553-6847. jj
The 18th and 19^gditions of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 1992 and 1995,
aerican PubHeStealth Association. Available at American Public Health Association, 1015 Fifteenth Street
, Washinjpon, DC 20005.
3ook of ASTM Standards, Editions 1994 and 1996, Volumes 11.01, American Society for Testing
s, 1015 Fifteenth Street NW, Washington, DC 20005. Method D1293-84 is located in the Annual
•'ofASTMStandards,l994, Volumes 11.01. Method D1293-95 is located in the Annual Book of ASTM
Standards, 1996, Volumes 11.01.
See Technical Notes on Drinking Water, EPA-600/R-94-173, October 1994, Available at NTIS, PB95-104766.
Methods for the Determination of Inorganic Substances in Environmental Samples, EPA-600/R-93-100,
August 1993. Available at NTIS, PB94-121811
GLI Method 2, Turbidity, November 2,1992, Great Lakes Instruments Inc., 8855 North 55th St., Milwaukee,
Wisconsin 53223.
-------
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
2.5 Quality Control Requirements for Sampling
This section describes the quality control requkj
collecting samples for analysis. Samples must be colle
dechlorinated, preserved, stored "on ice" (at approximate^
analysis. For a full description of quality control procedi
refer to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Re,
Control Manual (EPA Water Docket, (202)-260-3027, Do
that
tested
40C),antFshipped
[uirements
\alytical Metho
ber W-98-02).
for
please
rnd Quality
Samples must be collected over the course of a single 12-mp^tBE}pjtQd during the years 2001
to 2003. For systems using surface water or grouncteater under^uieKbpfek influence of surface
water, contaminants must be sampled once everj^^^^S^.e., 4 timeSsjpnonths apart) during the
12-month period. In contrast, systems using g^E^^^^^tot influenced by surface water) must
monitor once every six months (i.e., 2 timesT^ monm^Eip^|durin^the 12-month period. One
sampling event for all surface and ground jfafer systems mus^c^^mring the most vulnerable time
of the year. The most vulnerable time ofjhe yearisjSesigna||§a^May 1 to July 31 unless the State
informs the system that the StatejfMs? selectedfa differen? time period as the system's most
* dlBjuwf? xt&V j^fr
vulnerable. For microbiological contammantsjthe sampling frequency is once every 6 months (i.e.,
2 times, 6 months apart) for all surface watejand grojinJPwater systems, with one of the sampling
events duringvthe most vulnerabieftime oft
, ,..„ 9rnmr
2 specif^fie requireoTocations for sample collection and the methods for
&mples mu^K.analyzed separately and cannot be composited (i.e., individual
^fScted frommiffe^t^taps cannot be combined, mixed, or blended). Prior to
;,systeni1bwner/operator must remove any aeration equipment from the
"^ J.1 J. J.t )**«^^*i V^ 1 • , • T T*1 t J.1- 11 J.JJ* O.1
^^
sample analysi
discrete samp
,
collecting the
sampling tap andnute^sure that th'eisampling tap is clean. The sample must be collected directly
r o r^y^u^^^gj^^g^ ..^^ ^ r or r J
from a tap^ad^ot througnjanjjplastic or rubber hoses or tubing. To collect the sample, open the tap
and allojWThe system tcSflush»until the water temperature has stabilized, usually about 2 minutes.
CollecJ?the sample from teady but small stream of water (about the diameter of a pencil) flowing
e sampling tap.
fro
i^BF
If water to bejSampled is known or suspected to contain residual chlorine, the level of
chlorine musfbe determined. For all contaminants, it is important that the sample be
must be done at the sampling site. Also, the pH of the collected sample must
This pH adjustment must also be done at the sampling site.
e pH is to be lowered by adding acid to the sample, it is very important that the sample
be dechlorinated prior to adding acid.
When sampling for volatile organic compounds (VOCs), care must be taken to not let air
bubbles pass through the sample as the sample bottle is filled. After the sample is collected, the
sealed sample bottle must contain no air bubbles. The collected sample must be immediately stored
and shipped "on ice" (at 4°C [± 2°]), either using ice or frozen cold packs in a shipping cooler. All
13
-------
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
VOC samples should be collected in duplicate or triplicate to prevent the possible need for
resampling. All sample containers must be tightly sealed from collection time until laboratory
processing to prevent the introduction into or loss of analytes from the sample container.
Analysis of microbiological contaminants must
hours of sample collection. Therefore, the system owner/o
collection so that the microbiological samples can be deli "*
within 30 hours. For example, if samples must be ship
laboratory, sampling and shipping should be conducted
early in the week (i.e., not Friday, Saturday, or Sunda^
processing by the laboratory within 30 hours of sample
be processed
oratory within 30
ofsampl
laboratc
iry and
Systems must also ensure that laboratories analyze^nipre^^konly the analytical methods
use the quality control
Sn Section 2.6 of this
and Quality Control
lethods and the associated
ensure that the laboratories
and minimum reporting levels in Tables 1 and 2. The laBoratora
procedures applicable to the testing of all listed conlsgninants
document (and described in more detail in
Manual). EPA can only accept system
quality control procedures are followed.
they use are certified to use the required^Jpplicabl^methl
After the system owner/operator receives the labdptory results, he/she must review the
laboratory report to confirm the sy stelS^ormation and thejSample collection procedures and review
the test results. The data must the^Telectrq^^lly subnptted to the State. Reporting requirements
are discussed.in more detail jn Sections 3.
Addition
**
If
and proced
resample
systems^eWing more than 10,000 people:
is not performed according to the required instructions
contamu^^SKi analytical method, the system owner/operator must
rriellnlw instructions and procedures. For large systems, it is the
_,,f _^ «Mar^- tor to'arrange for the analysis of the contaminants for Assessment
Monitorinf at a laborato^^^^^s been certified for the methods specified in the UCMR. For the
Screening Survey analyse^^^EPA will provide a list of laboratories that must be used.
§~
There are no UCMR Program requirements for large systems regarding the collection and
ittal of duplicatelsamples. However, the system owner/operator must consult with the
jtpry conductinglme analytical work since laboratories may require collection and submittal
"" Lduplicatdsamples as part of the laboratories' internal quality control program.
•was
utjurajw-
yuirements specific to systems serving 10,000 or fewer people in State Monitoring
The State or EPA Regional Office will notify small systems of the dates when sampling must
be conducted. If sampling is not performed according to the instructions or procedures for each
contaminant and its method, and resampling is not possible, then the owner/operator must notify the
14
-------
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
State or EPA Regional Office of the sampling deviations. The sampling deviations should be
included in the sample reporting forms that must be sent to the laboratory with the samples.
The laboratory will send a sample collection kit to all systems which will include: sample
containers; packing materials and cold packs; instructions for collecting^the samjpre and sample
treatment (such as dechlorination or preservation); the^fsnt&^§ reporttKWsJpreach sample; a
chain of custody form; the contact name and telephone numberfor thetyar^ratory; and a prepaid
return shipping docket and return address label. If any of
are not included or arrive damaged, the system must noti"
collection kit. Each kit must be stored and maintained
Note that cold packs must be frozen prior to sample coll
stored and shipped back to the laboratory "on ice" as i
The State or EPA Regional Office will send the sy
use of containers, sample collection, dechlorination and/oi^
and preparing the sample and containers for shipment. EPA, in co:
secure
Son so thIFthe
: kit instructior
Lof the sami
samr
colk
i be
/operator instructions on the
k gf the samples, and sealing
!|||with the State, will use
a random statistical process to select some systems instate PlanslE^&iifce requested to collect
duplicate samples for quality control. Systems soi-seleptedtfor quality^epm^oTsampling will receive
i n • i •, T*I • *,# tS&SI^Ni i» <~3^&t* ?*S, t '^^|jj?f* i , .11 .
two sample collection kits. The same required|sampling|r|rpcedures andrlaboratory methods must
be used for both the original and the duplicafePset of sample*!***1'' •*
The system must completely fill out the sampling forms'senf by the laboratory, including the
data elements 1 through 9 that are liste*d in Section 4.4. Jsach form must be signed, dated and
returned to the EPA designated laboratory. TheHaboratorjpwill then send an electronic copy of the
test results to both the system and tfie State unless the system prefers to do the required electronic
reporting themselves. - *-*•
2.6 Quality Control Requirements for Laboratories
Systems must ensure that laboratories use only the analytical methods specified in the UCMR
when analyzing'SMQplesifor the Assessment Monitoring component of the UCMR Program. These
methods specify'qualit^bntrol (QC)fprocedures which must be followed to ensure accurate and
precise data. EPA has aSoTspecified additional quality control procedures for the UCMR Program,
whichsare discussed in the UCMR Analytical Methods and Quality Control Manual (EPA Water
Docfft, Docket Number W-98-02.)
J
As a result, criteria for reviewing laboratory qualifications exist. Systems must ensure that
ries providinffervices in support of their monitoring are currently approved and/or certified
analytical methods. Additionally, laboratories must also utilize the
QC procedures and the frequency of QC testing vary among the methods. Many of the
methods specified in the UCMR provide criteria to be used in evaluating and accepting laboratory
performance based on related QC data. It is imperative that laboratories adhere to the QC
requirements since monitoring data will not be accepted by EPA if the applicable QC requirements
are not met. If the UCMR QC requirements are not met, the monitoring data will be deleted from
15
-------
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
the UCMR database and the system will be considered to be out of compliance with UCMR
requirements. . ...
Note that this section of this guidance document is intended only as an overview of the
UCMR quality control requirements for laboratories. For detailed information, refsrto the UCMR
Analytical Methods and Quality Control (EPA Water Docket, Number j^S-j^ffand the UCMR
Preamble \
2.6.1 Minimum Reporting Level (MRL)
Laboratories must demonstrate that they can achlS
level (MRL) for each analyte. EPA recognizes that sonic
data at lower concentrations. However, to achieve consisteSS?
are only required to report quantitative results for concenteauoL
The laboratory may report lower concentrations to uHT water
concentrations equal to or greater than the MRLs wilkbe enter©
MRL concentrations are listed in Table 5.
_^^ porting
juries are able to provide reliable
fcUCMR database, laboratories
greater than the MRLs.
ler/operator, but only
ICMR database. The
Table 5. UCMR Analytical Methods
Contaminant
Approvei
lyrical Methods
J J*®
Minimum Reporting
Level
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
EPA 5S
M
2.4
2,6-Dinitr^ene
2.0jig/L'
gk EPA 515.2; D5317-93; 992.32
1.0|ig/L*
DCPA di-aci
EPA SU51JIEPA515.2; D5317-93; 992.32
*ga^JV^, -•»-*• ' '
l.Oug/L1
4,4'-DDE
__,_
EPA 508;EPA 508.1; EPA 525.2; D5812.96;
|0!06 *
0.75
EPT
37; EPA 525.2; D5475-93; 991.07
1.2
mate
J
EPA 507; EPA 525.2; D5475-93; 991.07
0.87 jig/L*
EPA 524.2; D5790.95; SM6210D
5.0
;ne
EPA 524.2; D5790.95; SM6210D
12fig/Ll
EPA 507; EPA 525.2; D5475-93; 991.07
23}ig/L'
Note: Analytical methods abbreviations are: EPA= EPA Methods, D = ASTM Methods, SM = APHA Standard
Methods, 900 series = AOAC Methods. See Appendix C for the full reference for each of the analytical
methods listed.
Minimum reporting level (MRL) determined by multiplying by 10 the least sensitive method's minimum
detection limit (MDL = standard deviation times the Student's T value for 99% confidence level with n-1
degrees of freedom), or when available, multiplying by 5 the least sensitive method's estimated detection limit
-------
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
(EDL=concentration of compound yielding approximately a 5 to 1 signal to noise ratio or the calculated MDL,
whichever is greater). -, ,'
MRL for VOCs determined by multiplying by 10 either the published MDL or 0.5 ug/L, whichever is greater.
The MDL of 0.5 ug/L (0.0005 mg/L) was selected to conform to the VOC MDL requirements of 40 CFR
14U4(f)(17(E).
2.6.2 Calibration
Each method describes calibration procedures tha|Se*used to dg
of the method analytes. Some methods allow several opjpns:
• a calibration curve based on either ext
analyte relative to an internal standard, o:
• an average response factor for each anal;
The laboratory must select and follow on;
approved method to meet the requirements of
methods, EPA Methods 524.2 and 525.2, hav
be met prior to calibration.
isto the
2.6.2.1 Calibration Verification
The laboratory analyst m
ensure accuracy of the analy-tic
must be chewed. To
frequenciesEJilhich
Table 6
calibraup
In add!
criteria li
lures outlined hi the
ie mass spectral (MS)
ft hi the method that must
iperiodicap^veriryjapibration during the analysis of samples to
suits. T|lllblkoli!ryary in the frequency at which calibration
its of the UCMR, EPA is defining specific
ust be verified. These frequencies are listed in
17
-------
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Table 6. Frequency Requirements for Verifying Calibration
Method
Specifications
EPA 507
D5475-93
991.07
each working day
EPA 508
D5812-96
990.06
each working day
EPA 508.1
D5812-96
992.32
each 12 hour shift
mate between low- and
id-level standard after
every 10 samples
EPA 515.1
D5317-93
992.32
each working day
EPA 515.2
D5317-93
992.32
each workin
EPA 524.
D5790-
SM62
ery 12 hours
Note: Analytica||n|jIK
MethoSsfSwIeB
ihreviationsj^:?rEPA= EPA Methods, D= ASTM Methods, SM = APHA Standard
Methods. See Appendix C for the full reference for each analytical method.
lost of the metfigdsfrecommend verifying the instrument calibration using a mid-level
calibration check standard The method acceptance criteria for verifying calibration are based on
. However|!o meet the objectives of the UCMR, calibration must be verified across the
rang analyte concentrations that are being measured. Based on the recommendations from
is specifying calibration verification at low- and mid- levels for each method.
ether
cy of verifying calibration for UCMR samples is based on the number of samples
in an analysis batch. For the UCMR Program, an analysis batch is defined as
samples analyzed using the same instrument within a 24-hour period. However, the maximum
number of UCMR samples that can be included in one analysis batch is 30. The 24-hour period
begins with the analysis of the low-level calibration check standard and ends with the analysis of the
final calibration check standard. The 24-hour period does not necessarily include the analysis time
18
-------
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
used to generate the calibration curve. However, if a new curve is prepared each time samples are
analyzed, the 24-hour period still begins with the analysis of the low-level calibration check
standard.
Method blanks, shipping blanks, initial and continuing calibratioi
spikes (MS), matrix spike duplicates (MSD), and any independent QC
with the UCMR samples are not counted in determining the W. sampl
idards, matrix
are analyzed
2.6.3 Method Detection Limit (MDL)
The method detection limit (MDL) is defined as
that can be measured and reported with 99 percent conlulenic
greater than zero. Usually, measurements at or very near*
qualitative, because they are not precise enough to meetiffie;
. concentratiogo^gBbstance
at the analyte concentration is
^concentration are considered
data user(s).
Laboratories must calculate their MDLs fo||each analyliSj||S§n||$ie primary column)
according to the procedure in CFR 136 Appeni^^p^cluded her^^Appendix D) and the
additional requirements in the UCMR Analytic^^^fiod^^^iality Control Manual (EPA Water
Docket Number W-98-02). To ensure thdfaccurac^§r^^^^rte% for the UCMR Program,
laboratory calculated MDL levels for eachjanalyte must be'le^OT^pfequal to one-half of the MRL
listed in Table 5. . — .
2.6.4 Laboratory Reagent (Method) Bla
AlLoJLthe methods
reagent
exactly
standards, an!
method analytes^l
apparatus.
•royed for the ®^^^rogram require periodic analysis of a laboratory
lank. l;§|jjulraiekhods, this^aenned as an aliquot of reagent water that is treated
includin^^posure to all glassware, equipment, solvents, reagents, internal
|gates thaf^^S'^^ith other samples. This blank is used to determine if
Lterferencesjire,present in the laboratory environment, the reagents, or the
frequency ol^^^^hpd blank analysis depends upon the type of sample manipulation
Tprior to the mstrumentaf analysis. Methods that involve extraction of the sample usually
te analysis of a metEodrbiank with each set of samples that are extracted together. When the
les are analyzed directly, a blank is analyzed on a daily basis.
Jt
juired frequencies for analyzing method blanks for the UCMR Program are listed in Table
"ieet theo^Bves of the UCMR, the method blank must be analyzed as the first sample on
iately following the initial calibration check standard). For methods that
, the method blank must be carried through the extraction process. Each extraction
batch 01 samples must include a method blank. An extraction batch is defined as all samples
prepared/extracted together by the same person(s) during a work day (normally an 8-10 hour period
for routine working schedules). The same lot of extracting solvent, internal standard fortifying
solution, and surrogate standard fortifying solution must be used for all samples included in a batch.
When applicable, all samples in an extraction batch must be derivatized with the same batch of
derivatizing agent. A maximum of 20 UCMR samples can be included in an extraction batch.
19
-------
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Method blanks, shipping blanks, calibration check standards, any independent QC samples, duplicate
samples, and spiked samples that are extracted with UCMR samples are not counted as samples in
determining the 20 sample maximum. •-•-*-
Table 7. Frequency Requirements for Analyzing Laboratory Re
-----j*
U<
Method
Method Specifications
EPA 507
D5475-93
991.07
1 per sample set or if reagents chan;
EPA 508
D5812-96
990.06
1 per sample set or if reagents changed
itch (s20 samples)
EPA 508.1
D5812-96
992.32
1 per sample set per
Jaf '
gr sample batch (^20 samples)
EPA 515.1
D5317-93
992.32
1 per sample
1 per sample batch (^20 samples)
EPA 515
D5317-!
992.3
1 per sample batch (<. 20 samples)
EPA 524.2
D5790-95
SM6210D
samples
1 per sample batch (^30 samples)
our extraction batch
1 per sample batch (s 20 samples)
Note Analytical methods abbreviations are: EPA= EPA Methods, D= ASTM Methods, SM = APHA Standard
Methods, 900 serielp1 AOAC Methods. See Appendix C for the full reference for each listed analytical
method.
»ent Blank (Shipping Blank or Travel Blank)
ilpWMethod 524.2 is the only method specified in the UCMR that requires the preparation
and analysis of a field reagent blank with each group of samples collected from the same sampling
station at approximately the same time. This blank is an aliquot of reagent water or other blank
matrix that is placed in a sample container in the laboratory and treated as a sample in all respects,
20
-------
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
including shipment to the sampling site, storage, preservation, and all analytical procedures. The
purpose of this blank is to determine if method analytes or other interferences are present in the field
or shipping environment.
2.6.5 Quality Control (QC) Sample
Most of the UCMR Program methods recommeni
control (QC) sample at least quarterly. A QC sample is
concentration which is used to fortify an aliquot of reage
is obtained from a source external to the laboratory, an
standards. It is used to check laboratory performance.
2.6.6 Sample Matrix Spike (MS) and Matrix Spike-Duplica
One technique that is useful in evaluatinj
determine the precision of duplicate analyses. Thi
the laboratory and the aliquots are processed ancPi
only useful when the original sample containTbackgroTfiKI
the
ution of
ater or sarflpie
ifferentffirom the s
alyze a quail
of kno
QCjjagjfple
ration
oratory'
divide
on for a method is to
•o or more aliquots in
;eparatejamples. This technique is
fc__*__.i method analytes.
for U@
ifcl: (MS) and matrix spike duplicate (MSD) on a
the EPA is requiring
In order to effectively evaluates precisio
preparation and analyses of a sample|matrix
minimum of five percent of the USJ^^samplethat arejjocessed together. A laboratory spiked
MS sample is an aliquot of an e^ronmen^^ample^which known quantities of the method
analytes are added in the laboratory. A lab^^^spped MSD sample is an additional aliquot of
that same e^^rpinmentaljam^^o which ^^arn^^io wn quantities of the method analytes are
added in^!^a|^tory.'^^^^^iked MS/T^SE^samples are analyzed exactly like a sample, and
their purpoSi^te[etermine1wlieth^the sample matrix contributes bias to the analytical results.
The concenlra^rSithe ana^^mSfeainspiked sample matrix must be determined in a separate
^— ^n^— J*-— *™^-— * 'tSL,.*! > jtS.x-VSfei'.SEil**} It *• f *
aliquot.
2.6.7
(I*
Several of the UCMR!Program methods require or recommend the use of an internal standard
r calibration and ejpantitation purposes. An IS is a pure analyte that is added to a sample or
extract in a known amount. It is used to measure the relative responses of other method
and surrogates that are components of the same solution. The IS must be an analyte that
When used, the IS is added to all samples, standards, and QC samples
2.6.8 Surrogate Standard
Several of the UCMR Program methods require the use of surrogate analytes. A surrogate
is a pure analyte which is extremely unlikely to be found in any sample. It is added to a sample
aliquot in a known amount before the sample is processed, and is measured with the same procedures
21
-------
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
used to measure other sample components. The purpose of a surrogate analyte is to monitor method
performance with each sample. When used, the surrogate is added to all samples, standards, and QC
samples. . . -.
2.6.9 Confirmation
2.6.9.1 Gas Chromatographic (GC) Methods
Preliminary identification of contaminant com
508,508.1,515.1, and 515.2, as well as in the approve
performed by comparison of a sample component retem
reference chromatograph. Analytical confirmation is
chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS). If the re'
corresponds, within reasonable limits (or otherwise specifi
a standard compound, then identification is presumed positive.
of positive gas chromatographic results, either as agjesult of the
secondary column confirmation, by mass spectrorhi
s recommenae
:mativ«ejmethods (s
the retention 1
in all these me!
?thodsjSff7,
is
idard
Kxls by gas
2.6.9.2 Gas Chromatography/Mass SpectrometrjffG
.e of an unknown compound
, to the retention time of
requires confirmation
lumn alone or with
Confirmation
includepEoiifirmaJpn of any analyte detected by gas
S methods. Foiypne analytes, sample extracts may first
The UCMR QC requireme
chromatograph above the MRL by ^^ _, , _r ,
be analyzed via specified GC methods withJfttfial confirmation by a second column dissimilar to
the primary column. If thejanaErte detecti^>nlisaco|f^ned by the secondary column, then the
iMt -'•"'ffilfc'* **"• •>*"*?* :'-%»Hiag^gjaBiifflMftty * J ~
contaminanmist be reconfirmedjby GC/M^^^^uree specified ion peaks (listed in the UCMR
trol Manual) for contaminant identification.
2.6.9.3 Mass SfJetromtry (M
Identfficalioffanc^^firmatioh of contaminant compounds recommended in EPA Methods
524.2 aaiF525.2 is per^^^Ujby comparison of a sample component's mass spectrum (after
background subtraction) toiaKreference spectrum in the user-created database. The GC retention time
of thijsample component|sho!iid be within three standard deviations of the mean retention time of
propound in the calibration mixture.
ddiriqnalgQualiry Controls
Systems must ensure that the laboratory examines the samples when they arrive in the
laboraTory to determine if the proper shipping conditions were used. Samples for which the methods
specify storage at approximately 4°C must arrive at the laboratory packed in ice or frozen cold
packs. If there is no visible ice or the cold packs are completely thawed, the laboratory should report
the conditions to the water system. Samples should not be analyzed if the shipping temperature was
not maintained at 4°C (± 2°). The laboratory must also invalidate samples that were collected in
improper sampling containers (e.g., plastic bottles instead of glass) or mat were improperly filled
-------
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
(e.g., half-filled bottles for samples that are required to be completely filled with no air or bubbles).
If resampling cannot be performed, then the water system must indicate in the report to EPA that the
samples were invalidated because of the shipment or sampling problem, etc., and no data should be
reported. . ...
-------_^
Finally, the laboratory must analyze each sample within the rec
appropriate, EPA standardized the holding times across
group. If a UCMR sample is not extracted or analyzed wit
the sample should not be reported. The laboratory shoi
sample was invalidated because of a holding time proble
to the State when the system submits its report for that:
time. When
the same analyte
.then the data fq
23
-------
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Section 3. State (Primacy Agency) Responsibilities
Cooperation and coordination between States (or other primacy agencies, such as a Tribe)
and EPA is essential to the implementation of a successful UCMR Program. Jpfates will be
responsible for implementing many key elements of the program. TMs section details State
responsibilities.
3.1 General Responsibilities of the State
3.1.1 Primacy Revision
The unregulated contaminant monitoring pro
State assumption of primary enforcement authority ("primae
Primacy allows a State to be the primary agency for admjS
in that State. EPA believes that the current revision oTthe
State's primacy program. Therefore, each State
•T^li^-
ly has been a requirement for
|PWS program under SDWA.
ic PWS program
o become part of a
• will need to revise
its program to adopt this UCMR. The State's pro^^^^^^n wouldljfp-fto address any changes
in the existing State authorities necessary to irnpramen^^^^sed UCMR Program. The procedure
for revising State programs is found in 40 GFR142. l^T^^^^tehave applied and been approved
for treatment as a State and primacy will have the same opportumtiesand responsibilities as a State.
For the purposes of this document, thejprm Primacy StatelwFfrefer to all States and tribes with
primacy.
3.1.2 Reporting RequirementlTfor
* .jMK&t*. *-* * — ^.jpstsfc <<* *• -*t
RWESFJfiff^- •
lomtonng
Iti- 'irfaBCV* iaggMfc W
onically submitted to the State and electronically
submitted BySHSState to EPA^Tib^Statemay, however, waive systems from reporting electronically
if the State dls^^^relieve sys^^^sthis burden. If the State waives electronic reporting
requirements fonm^^^os, it is 9ie^ibte's responsibility to enter the data so that it can be reported
electronicany^io%ninmrze-ilthe burden on small systems, the UCMR also allows the contract
laboratoryftb report'ln^psulte^directly to the State. However, it is ultimately the system's
responsibility to ensure thaStne results are reported in a timely manner. The monitoring results must
be eLeStronically reportedJo!fhe7State within 10 days of their receipt from the laboratory. The State
mu^plectronically report the results of the unregulated contaminant monitoring to the NCOD
though the Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS), or other information system
specified by the Agency^ no later than the quarter following receipt of these results from the PWS
^yaboratory. Eujther details on electronic reporting protocols for States may be found in the
ngjjuidance (EPA Water Docket Number W-98-02). Specific reporting requirements
ijirFSection 4.
34
-------
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
3.13 Enforcement
States that implement the provisions of the UCMR also have the primary responsibility for
enforcing the provisions of this rule. This may include actions such as sending violaiipn notices to
systems that do not conduct the required sampling.
3.1.4 Other Tasks
Primacy States will have to train laboratory perso
UCMR reporting requirements as well as complete otherj
need to update their databases so that the results of the
submitted to EPA electronically. They may also need
database or hi the performance of other tasks associated
electronic reporting requirements for systems, State pera
results into the State database. ^
Primacy States will also need to coordinai
EPA. Thus they may need to coordinate ariT"'
implementation and enforcement issues. Finally, Pri:
the system regarding the UCMR.
3.2 Development of State P
3.2.1 Selection of SystemtfServing 10,a
1 on newJSBorat
al tasks.
may
contaminant momtoiqHg can be
rsonnel on the userot this new
rule. If a State waives the
responsible for entering
CMR Program with
personnel regarding various
need to answer questions from
eople
m primacy^States can aTscPSHbose to assist in the development of a State
Monitorm^{ggp&tate Planffotsy^bms serving 10,000 or fewer people. An initial State Plan will
be prepared sent tothe Slaps for review. EPA will generate a random statistical sample
of systems basedSo1i|jfieJ|xsterns' water, s'qurce (ground water and surface water) and the population
served ^SOO^^^^^^id^^Ol^p^OO). The initial State Plan that is sent to States for review
will specif^^waterspurce^and size,lhe number of systems that were selected to participate hi the
UCMR^rogram in eacSS^^^It will include a list of the systems that were selected (1) for
Assessjnent Monitoring^2^^ participate in each of the Screening Surveys, and (3) as Index
s. It will also include alist of replacement systems so that the State can identify substitutes
foj^stems that are noUraalified to monitor. Finally, it will include the monitoring schedule, i.e.,,
»nth and year thaleach system must monitor for contaminants.
mjr
States_ma|pecept the systems that are selected for the initial State Plan without any changes
if||rae State p^ according to the guidelines established by EPA. States must notify
jlgiorial Office of whether they will accept the State Plan without any changes or make
changesto the plan within 60 days of its receipt from EPA. If a State does not respond to EPA's
request that the State review and comment on the State Plan, the initial EPA plan will be the State
Plan.
States may change the plans priior to informing the EPA Regional Officie by removing
systems that are closed, have merged, are classified as transient water systems, or are purchasing
25
-------
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
water from another system. These systems must be replaced with systems on the replacement list
The replacement system must be the first system on the replacement list that meets the same size and
source criteria. For example, a ground water system mat serves less than 500 people must be
replaced by the first ground water system on the replacement list that serves less tha&SOO people.
This process is necessary to maintain the statistical
integrity of the sample. After States have determined which systems neeJ&bejffinoved and which
systems will be their replacements, they must specify in the modified StaMil^iRnicb. systems were
removed, the reasons for the removal of those systems, and^^^placlmfaBBakthose systems.
3.2.2 Nominations for Pre-Screen Testing
The State may also participate in the selection of
Testing by nominating the 5 to 25 PWSs in the State that
Contaminants (listed in Table 3). Some of the most
systems, systems using ground water under the direct
water systems, systems using water from karst aquif
microbiological contaminants. The State must a
Plan. After the systems are included in the
for participation in Pre-Screen Testing.
; systems foru!e*Pre-Screen
aerable to the List 3 (1999)
may be surface water
.uence*o^^^^water, shallow ground
systems^|KHSm|tory of problems with
it \aimerawapmm systems to the State
then select up to 200 of the systems
3.23 Most Vulnerable Samplin
c for alMCMR monitoring is between May 1 and
ear in which a system will monitor. The
on must be included in the revised State Plan
riod appKeyft) all systems or that it applies to specific systems
Ian.
The default most vulnerabje?sarnplin;
July 31. States may specif^m alternative
alternative mUst vulnerabje^rnplmg perio
with an indicatiottithat th<
which the*
3.2.4 Notificatio^iEiWic WafSSSystems
,ly, if a State^|l^^e^,to participate in the development of the State Plan, the State must
includ^otification inforinatioWn the plan. The State Plan must include the process by which the
Stateasvill notify small PWSsrof their selection to participate in the UCMR monitoring, and must
_. the process through which the State will inform the small and large water systems of their
'nsibilities to conduct UCMR monitoring. The State Plan must also include information on
Ithe State will implement the process to notify and inform the PWSs.
3.332ElnrpIementation of UCMR for Small Systems
33.1 Assessment Monitoring
States that participate in the development of the State Plan must notify the small systems that
are required to conduct Assessment Monitoring sampling at least 90 days before sampling is
26
-------
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
scheduled to begin. States are also required to send to the participating small systems a monitoring
schedule and information on monitoring requirements including:
the location and frequency of sampling;
the storage of sampling equipment;
the use of sample containers and other equipment;
sample collection; JL
measurement of sample temperature and resicmafr
dechlorination and preservation of the samjps;
sealing the containers and preparing the samples for
filling out the forms that will be returnecJSith the
shipping the samples and forms; and
reviewing and submitting the test results:
chlo
The small system owner/operator is required to
State and the laboratory, collect the samples, ship the*
sample analytical results to the State. The owner/operato:
report the analytical results directly to the State ^hqwesLej
responsible for ensuring that the analytical resujpPare
of sample shipping and analysis. Information onfsap
requirements were included previously infSection 2ipf tHT
has prepared the UCMR Guidance for Curators ojjPublic
People (see Sections 2 and 3) and thejp|MR Analytical Me,
Sections 3 and 4), available fromtijJMEPA Wapr Docke
guidance documents to establishsschedules anxlfdevelo
[taring instructions from the
and report the
electronically
ie owner andfor'bperator remains fully
So the SjIeT EPA will bear the costs
irocedures and quality control
Ippaocument. In addition, EPA
"Systems Serving less than 10,000
bds and Quality Control Manual (see
lumber W-98-08). States can use these
er instructions for the systems.
Survey!
3.3.2
StatesTffilipafticipate iniheideveloprnent of the State Plan must notify the small systems that
' "^^fWjBiSgS^Htilfca^ifr * %ffi 'iAS'sSfiWSjBBi; •»,
are required to conduciScreening'Sjrayey^sampling at least 90 days before sampling is scheduled to
begin. States^e^^^^^feed to selSpnhe participating small systems a monitoring schedule and
informationllo&^mtonngireqTiiirenients including:
iSBgaLJulBuIp''
the locatioro^pfrequency of sampling;
the storagjj|bflampling equipment;
the use offsample containers and other equipment;
sampleJollection;
measurement of sample temperature and residual chlorine levels;
and preservation of the samples;
ifing the containers and preparing the samples for shipping;
^filling out the forms that will be returned with the samples;
shipping the samples and forms; and
• reviewing and submitting the test results.
The small system owner/operator is required to read the monitoring instructions from the
State and the laboratory, collect the samples, ship the samples to the laboratory, and report the
sample analytical results to the State. The owner/operator may direct the laboratory to electronically
27
-------
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
report the analytical results directly to the State; however, the owner and/or operator remains fully
responsible for ensuring that the analytical results are reported to the State. EPA will bear the costs
of sample shipping and analysis for small systems. Information on Screening Survey sampling
procedures and quality control requirements will be provided by EPA.
srocesssm also be
itheJlre-Screen TestiB\or its
; are also requirecnosend to the
monitoring requirements
3 3 3 Pre-Screen Testing
States that participate in the State Plan develo
notification to systems that are selected to participai
contractor will conduct the actual sampling for small sy;
participating small systems a monitoring schedule and
including:
assisting EPA or its contractor in idem
if necessary, assisting with the samp
. ,. / . . ° . f £3K#£a
providing basic system informationf
reviewing the laboratory resufls; and
reporting the laboratory rejults to
Jf.' ^
The small system owner/operator is required to reacfthe monitoring instructions from the
State and assist the EPA contractor^^ample cjllction. EI^C will bear the costs of sample shipping
and analysis. The owner/operatoranay direclra|e labota&ry to electronically report the analytical
results directly to the State; however, the own^^mgal^^emains fully responsible to ensure that the
analytical resjjpts are reporteof&the State, mo^^oiron Pre-Screen Testing sampling procedures
and qualij^^^feQl requn^oehts'will be proviolSFby EPA.
3.3.4 ..,„„„„
Ji"'^^™M™^Mt 'W
ateon the State Plan development process will be responsible for notifying
system&xSftheir selectio^^Sndex Systems. EPA or its contractor will conduct the monitoring of
Index^ystems (which ar^raquTried to sample every year during the 5-year cycle), btrt States will
i provide background Information as well as information on the frequency of monitoring and
Sr/operator responsibilities, which include:
EPA contractor identify sampling stations,
lessary, helping the EPA contractor collect samples;
data on well and screen depth (if applicable), wells or intakes used at the
time of sampling, and pumping rates for each well or intake at the time of sampling
for unregulated contaminants;
if necessary, helping EPA collect basic system information on precipitation, land use
and other environmental factors (e.g., soils and geology); and
reviewing and submitting the laboratory results.
-------
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
3.4 Implementation of UCMR for Large Systems
3.4.1 Assessment Monitoring
Since all large systems must conduct assessment monitoring, Stat
notify large system owners and/or operators of the requirement to co:
and inform them of their responsibilities under the UCMR^States
notify system owners and/or operators of the frequency ofsajng|mg am
include:
• background information on the UCMR;
• the monitoring requirements; and
• reporting requirements.
States may include information on sample collection,
information regarding the responsibilities of large system ownei
Section 2 of this document.
:ir discretion,
ent Monitoring
[e information and
ibilities, whic
pping. More detailed
:ors is included in
3.4.2 Screening Survey
States must also notify largej|?||!em owners and/orjp"erators of the requirement to conduct
Screening Survey monitoring andjmform thenJSf their basic responsibilities under the UCMR at
least 90 days prior to the initiationp^amplin^^States^n. have to provide information and notify
system owners and/or operatorslpi' the frequenc^oj^ampling and their responsibilities, which
include: ^^____
^m* mik
on the UCMR;
and
StatesTnust rnc|u|sgrformation on sample collection, storage, and shipping. More detailed
information regarding ^^esr|on^ibilities of large system owners and/or operators is included in
Section^ of this document!
ticipate in the State Plan development process will be required to notify the
^^ their selection to participate in the Pre-Screen Testing. States will have to
prcmaggntofmation and notify system owners and/or operators of the frequency of sampling and
their responsibilities, which include:
• background information on the UCMR;
• the monitoring requirements; and
• reporting requirements.
29
-------
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
States must include information on sample collection, storage, and shipping, and will inform
the system owner/operator of the EPA-designated laboratory to which samples must be sent.
Additional information regarding the responsibilities of large system owner/operator is included in
Section 2 of this document.
3.4.4 Other Authorities
3.4.4.1 State Waivers for Contaminants Monitored
States (and Tribes that received "treatment as a
available to them under the rule that are not related to
may apply to EPA for a waiver from monitoring requ
large systems. To apply for a such a waiver, States mus
• a list of the contaminants for which waiyj
• supporting documentation that demo;
waiver is requested:
has not been detected i
in the 15 years prior,
-and- jjjf
has never been used, store
prior to the ap||j|ation dai
If the State can demonstrarthat an;
waiver for that contaminant,
3.4.4.2
Petf
and
ataminant for which a
or distoiution systems in the State
%ased in the State in the 15 years
meets these criteria, EPA may grant a
Contaminants to the Monitoring List
^*a»m- peuonA^ to add one or more contaminants to the unregulated
contaminanl'monitormg list. This^eSfioja must be signed by the governors of at least seven States
and must clear^^^^^Jhe reasonfoialdding the contaminant to the monitoring list, including:
ublic health risk (particularly any information that might be available
regardirig^roportionate risks to the health and safety of children);
the expected'occurrence (including any available data);
any anal|Scaf'' methods that are known or could be used to test for the
contaminant(s); and
any otherWormation that could assist EPA in determining whether the addition of
the conlaminant(s) would preclude the listing of another contaminant of a higher
juBKc^health concern.
30
-------
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Section4. Reporting Requirements ~
The owner/operator must report the information listed in Table 8 to the State or EPA,
whichever has primary enforcement authority, within 10 days of receiving thejfsults. If the
laboratory is not part of the system, the owner/operator must obtain the irifdteationtfpr data elements
10 through 20 hi Table 2 from the laboratory. The report must be hi theE^bK^Bc or other format
specified by the State or EPA Regional Office.
fable 8. Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation Reporting R<
MMhh, jttP
Data Element
ition
[. Public Water System (PWS)
identification Number
The code used to identify ___
two-character postal Statljabl
are unique to each PWS.
code begins with the standard
aining seven characters
2. Sampling Station Type
int to the distribution system
le IdentificationlNumber
The sampling sUti^Spe^pm which th^lSplfe came. The valid
choices are: ""
(a) FmishediWater^
(b) FmisheS/treated wal
after treafrhent Jf
(c) Flushed/treated water fropEpMn the Distribution System
(djy|nished/trea1ed water from End of the Distribution line with longest
.resiaence timeSP it
l^Finishedgfreated waterifrom household/drinking water tap
|f) FinisheS^ated waterlrrom unknown locatioin
(g) Otherlffinished/frrafed water
(h) Raw/unl
Tthefsource type represented by the sample. The valid choices are:
(a|fSurface water from a stream or purchased surface water from a
stream.
(b) Surface water from a lake or reservoir, or purchased surface water
from a lake or reservoir.
(c) Ground water under the direct influence of surface water or
purchased Ground water under the direct influence of surface water.
(d) Ground water or purchased ground water.
A unique identifier assigned by the PWS for each sample.
The date the sample is collected.
6.
The unregulated contaminant for which the sample is being analyzed.
31
-------
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Data Element
Definition
7. Analytical Results - Sign
or was
An alphanumeric value indicating whether the sample analysis result
was:
(a) (<) "less than" means the contaminant was not
detected at a level "less than" the MRL.
(b) (=) "equal to" means the contaminant wjBJUjftecffitTat a level "equal
to" the value reported in (12), 4fealytical gjj
8. Analytical Result - Value
The actual numeric value
microbiological results.
analysis fo:
9. Analytical Result - Unit of Measure
The unit of measuremem
micrograms per liter, \JL\
etc.)
!cal results
rming units per mi
iFU/mL,
10. Analytical Method Number
The method number of the
hod used.
11. Public Water System Facility
Identification Number - Source
Intake/Well, Treatment Plant and
Sampling Station
An identification number establish
discretion, the PWS|a|jffitoque to the
source of waterjlniatmexr
or, at the State's
PWS, eachjnjp^treatm"®
unique identification nuraBp,
groimdjrater well oifwelmel!
)lan and a sampling station. Within each
t and sampling point must receive a
^idingrffor intake, surface water intake,
^ „ ... .^^giBpInd including, for sampling
stationjentry pointsfto the dis|i|Bnpn system, wellhead, intake, or
locations within^e distributio^system. The same identification number
_«-sfinJ2 use(j consistently through the history of unregulated
inant^nitoring toJpSpresent the facility.
12. Public Water System Facilit
Type
iresemed by the water system facility identification
,e facilit
number:
(a) Intakell^pSface water sources)
Well or weiiiteld (for ground water sources)
reatment Plant
Sampling Station
*tnS^,Point to Distribution System
•***•--oir
jBooster Station
(h)'lfnknown
ide of the Public
acility for Source
'ell and Treatment 1
Jam
The east-west coordinate of each source intake, well or wellfield
centroid, and treatment plant associated with a sample expressed as
decimal degrees
JMT
ipngitude of the Pubfipwater
Facility for SourHf
jgll and TYea^Int Plant
The north-south coordinate of each source intake, well or wellfield
centroid, and treatment plant associated with a sample expressed as
decimal degrees
32
-------
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Data Element
Definition
S. Sample Type
[he type of sample collected. Permitted values include:
a) Reference Sample - calibration or QC samples.
b) Field Sample - sample collected and submitted for
mis rule.
c) Confirmation Sample -a sample anal;
contaminant detection. '
d) Field Blank -reagent watergpDther b]
container in the laboratory anStreated as a
including shipment to thejampling site,
analytical procedures. """
e) Equipment Blank-:
through die equipment
demonstrate that the equi"
'f) Split Sample -sample
aboratories or analysts "
is under
B by process
procedures usei
e from contaminatiol
submitted to different
(g) Duplicate Sample -
separately with i
) Spiked Sample ^
analytes are added!
aced in a sample
spects,
and all
to
le to
sample analyzed
itities of the method
16. Detection Level
"Detection level" is refernngffolthe detection limit applied to both the
method an^equipmemf^D^eSraiUmkslaVe the lowest concentration of
a target Jontaminantrthat ?g^^^^^^(i or piece of equipment can
reliablyfascertain and report tslglreallT than zero (i.e., Instrument
Detection Limitijjylethod Deletion Limit, Estimated Detection Limit).
.!i^-«;**"!*l -•.?,£*• —-"*• * '
•sst
17. Detection Level Unit of Measure
gfie unit of Jjeasure to express the concentration, count, or other value
of a contamuiant level fo^me detection level reported.
(e.g.,
(CFU/mL), etc.)
18. Anal'
For purposes of the UCMR, Analytical Precision is defined as the
relative percent difference (RPD) between spiked matrix duplicates. The
RPD^for the spiked matrix duplicates analyzed in the same batch of
samples as the analytical result being reported is to be entered in this
fielcl:|Precision is calculated as Relative Percent Difference (RPD)
between spiked matrix duplicates using:
RPD = [(X, - Xz) / {(X, + XJ/2}] x 100
19.
ical Accuracy
T
For purposes of the UCMR accuracy is defined as the percent recovery
of the contaminant in the spiked matrix sample analyzed in the same
analytical batch as the sample result being reported and calculated using;
% recovery = [(amt. found in Sp - amt. found in sample) / amt. spiked]
xlOO
Chemicals: Presence- a response was produced by the analysis (i.e.,
greater than or equal to the MDL but less than the minimum reporting
level)/Absence- no response was produced by the analysis (i.e., less than
the MDL).
Microbiologicals: Presence- indicates a response was produced by the
analysis /Absence- indicates no response was produced by the analysis.
33
-------
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
^" "The"results of UCMR Program monitoring will be reportable to me public jthrougH the~j
Consumer Confidence Reports (CCR), as required by SDWA § 1441 (c)(4)(B) and established under::
the regulation recently published in the August 6,1998 Federal Register (63 FR 44512), as well as
through the Public Notification Rule (PNR) to be published in 1999. Failure to conduct monitoring
and/or report results (i.e., committing a violation) will be reportable undej the PuJDR Notification
Rule.
The results that would be reported through the
monitoring data that the States would receive under the UjtMK, and we
the NCOD. Information in NCOD will be available to tllfpublic.
Unregulated contaminants not on the UCMR Lis
the CCR. However, any "emerging" contaminants of Ic
reported to NCOD to assist in determining whether the)
considered for establishing health-based standards or adsisorre
e required to t^P^peTI under
concern couldIWwluntarily
kmal problem and should be
34
-------
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Section 5. Additional Information
5.1 , Who to Contact with Questions
Any questions pertaining to this guidance should be directed toj
Water program contact or EPA Region. *
EPA Headquarters:
Charles Job, Standards and Risk Managemeni
Drinking Water (MC-4607), U.S. Environment
Washington D.C. 20460, (202) 260-7084.
Regional Contacts
I. Anthony De Palma, JFK Federal Bldg.,lloom t
Phone: (617) 565-3610
H. Walter Andrews, 290 Broadway
(212) 637-3880
HI. Jeff Hass, 1650 Arch StreetJPKiladel
Phone:(215)814-5775
IV Janine Morris, 345 Cc
Phone: (404) 562-9481
V. Kim Harris, 77 WesRackson Bffd., Chic
Phone:(312)886-4239
VI. A Larry WrightrM44J Ross ArenueaMaf, TX 75202.
Thone: (2 ]J)l6654|l 50
|an Calow^26l^finnesota'^e^K.ansas City, KS 66101.
and
et, SW,
MA 02203.
>
10007-1866. Phone:
'29.
30365.
IL 60604-3507.
EX.
glebe, One^em^Place, 999 18th Street, Suite 500, Denver, CO 80202.
:r, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.
Larry Wofey^aOO Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101.
Phone: 2063^1893
General information may also be obtained from the EPA Safe Drinking Water Hotline.
s within the Uniteci States may reach the Hotline at (800) 426-4791. The Hotline is open
through Friday; excluding federal holidays, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Eastern Time.
35
-------
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Related Guidance Documents Available from EPA ,
The following guidance documents may also be helpful to States and owners/operators of
PWSs when implementing the new UCMR. These documents are available from ttfeEPA Water
Docket: telephone (202) 260-3027, Docket Number W-98-02. GeneraynfoimanBn can also be
obtained from the EPA Safe Drinking Water Hotline, (800) 426-4791, o&floufffthe EPA Office
of Ground Water and Drinking Water Internet Home page atMto://w^^^^v/ogwdw.
1. Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation^jtalytical i
Manual
2. Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulatia
Systems Serving 10,000 or Fewer People
3. Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Re
4. Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rsgujat^^ Technic
5. Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring 1
Water
i*"
Guidance
Information
ffial Representative Sample
36
-------
2,4-DNT
2,6-DNT
4,4'-DDE
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Appendix A
Acronym List
- 2,4-dinitrotoluene
- 2,6-dinitrotoluene
- 4,4'-dichloro dichlorophenyl ethylene, a de:
Alachlor ESA - alachlor ethanesulfonic acid, a degradati
AOAC - Association of Official Analytical Che:
APHA - American Public Health Association
ASDWA - Association of State Drinking Water A
ASTM - American Society for Testing and Maten!
BGM
CAS
CASRN
CCL
CCR
CERCLA
CFR
CPU
CFU/mL
CWS
DCPA
DCPA
mono-acii
degradates
DDE
DDT
GC
GLI method
GW
GWUISW
- Buffalo Green Monkey cells, a specifi
-c
lation and Liability Act
Chemical Abstract Service
Chemical Abstract Service Re
Contaminant Candidate Listifl
"ymff^
Consumer Confidence Reports
Comprehensive Environmental Response?
Code of Federal Regulations **
colony forming uni|jjP ^
colony forming unWper millHiter
J . ° *pir f *vmsss
community waterjsystem
.jiJSL ,Sl iffSHijj^.flUKIiLIf
imemyLjetrachloroterephSalaStnemical name of the herbicide dacthal
k "^ttiMBKSIn^L -«ags»»
pitiSi*. ,. «s-j(fr<'-:sa>jp!f£.T-v/~,-r» A
^gralation produc^fjDCPA
fehlorola'ichloroplenyBlthylene, a degradation product of DDT
ffiB$?t - * - JSftitftt^V*"'''^' *f»'j$i&"' : ^
^^^^phenyl trichloroethane, a general insecticide
estimat'eWd|t^tion limit
EnvironmenSfflProtection Agency
s-ethyl-cbpropylthiocarbamate, an herbicide
• Entry Jlprnt to the Distribution System
ethanesulfonic acid, a degradation product of alachlor
jederal Advisory Committee Act
11-time-equivalent
gas chromatography, a laboratory method
Great Lakes Instruments method
• ground water
• ground water under the influence of surface water
A-l
-------
HLPC
ICR
IRFA
IMS
IRIS
IS
LLE
MAC
MCL
MDL
MRL
MS
MS
MSD
MTBE
NAWQA
NCOD
NDWAC
NERL
NFS
NTIS
NTNCWS
NTTAA
OGWD
OMB
PAH
PBMS
pCi/L
PCR
Pb-
PfO
p
RDX
RFA
RPD
RSD
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
• high performance liquid chromatography, a laboratory method
- Information Collection Request / Rule
- initial regulatory flexibility analysis
- immunomagnetic separation
- Integrated Risk Information System
- internal standard
- liquid/liquid extraction, a laboratory mi
- mycobacterium avium complex
- maximum contaminant level
- method detection limit
- minimum reporting level
- mass spectrometry, a laboratory methq
- sample matrix spike
- matrix spike duplicate
- methyl-tert-butyl-ether, a gasoH
- National Water Quality Assessment^o]
- National Drinking WaterlSontaminant Ol
- National Drinking Water Advisojy^Counc
- National EnvironmeS^Researj^Laborai
- National Pesticidejlprvey
- National Technic^Rnformati^n Servic
ta Base
matic hyrocarbon
""-Based Measurement System
.dvancement Act
and Drinking Water
and Budget
.
polymeraseiicnam reaction
Lead-21^a^lturally occurring, alpha-emitting radionuclide (??)
Poloniurn-210, a naturally occurring, alpha-emitting radionuclide
• Publicater System
ater System Facility
lity assurance
' quality control
hexahydro- 1 ,3 ,5-trinitro- 1 ,3 ,5-triazine
Regulatory Flexibility Act
relative percent difference
relative standard deviation
A-2
-------
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
SBREFA
SD
SDWA
SDWIS
SDWIS FED
SM
SMF
SOC
SPE
SRF
STORET
SW
TBD
TNCWS
UCMR
UCM
UMRA
USEPA
UV
VOC
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
standard deviation
Safe Drinking Water Act
Safe Drinking Water Information System
• the Federal Safe Drinking Water Information System
• Standard Methods
• Standard Compliance Monitoring Framewoi
• synthetic organic compound
• solid phase extraction, a laboratory mi
• State Revolving Fund
• Storage and Retrieval System
• surface water
• to be determined
• transient non-community water syst
- Unregulated Contaminant Monito:
- Unregulated Contaminant Mo
- micrograms per liter
- Unfunded Mandates Refo:
- United States EnvironmefSl
- ultraviolet
- volatile organic camp
A-3
-------
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
A-4
-------
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Appendix B
Definitions
All monitored systems means the representative satnj
non-community water systems serving 10,000 or fewer
Plan of such systems and community water systems se:
Assessment Monitoring means sampling, testing, and
available analytical methods and for which preliminary
drinking water; all monitored systems must conduct assessmp
will be conducted for the List 1 (1999) Contaminants.
Index systems means a limited number of public^
systems in State Plans, were selected through ^^
for public water system identification numbersTan
five-year unregulated contaminant monitoring and lisfih]
they operate that can be related to omerjsystems offsimil
source, pumping rates and environmental settini
listed contamirSSSfthat have
Sate their possible occurrence in
Assessment Monitoring
1
,
.domly selected from
..,_ ,dom number generator
f report quarterly over the
lish conditions under which
characteristics, such as water
Listed contaminant means a contaminant identified as^an analyte hi Table 1, 141.40(b)(5), the
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regu^ion-T^stinguish the current (i.e., the 1999) UCMR
listed contaminants from pjtfential future ^G^^psred contaminants, all references to UCMR
contaminantplts will ideS^^ie appropn^e^^ar hi parenthesis immediately following the
referenceSI|i|^^pr example^th1e*contaminants included in the UCMR (1999) List include the
componenfillpentified a/BisrF^999), List 2 (1999) and List 3 (1999) contaminants.
Listing cycle meansIfaejfivfcyear pefiod^r which each revised unregulated contaminant monitoring
regulation listis^ffec^mSd during which no more than 30 unregulated contaminants from the list
may be required to be monftorecL JEPA is mandated to develop and promulgate a new UCMR List
every five years. ——-
'fonfforing means, for the purposes of this section and distinct from Assessment Monitoring, all
aspects of determining tn^ quality of drinking water relative to the listed contaminants, including the
sampling; testing; review and reporting of analytical results; and submission of the analytical results
CMR database.
"
f systems (or Systems most vulnerable) means a subset of 5 to not more than 25
systenis*bf all monitored systems in a State that are determined by that State in consultation with the
EPA Regional Office to be most likely to have the listed contaminants occur in their drinking waters,
considering the characteristics of the listed contaminants, precipitation, system operation, and
environmental conditions (soils, geology and land use).
B-l
-------
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Pre-Screen Testing means sampling, testing, and reporting of the listed contaminants that may have
newly emerged as drinking water concerns and, in most cases, for which methods are in an early
stage of development; Pre-Screen Testing on the listed contaminants after public notice and
comment must be conducted by a limited number of systems (up to 200) through the us&of a random
generator selected from up to 25 most vulnerable systems. Pre-Screen "feting wKJfbe performed
to determine whether a listed contaminant occurs in sufficient freaueneftbi tibemiost vulnerable
systems or sampling locations to warrant its being included^futureSent Monitoring or
Screening Surveys. Pre-Screen Testing will be conducted fislle
Representative Sample means a subset of community
systems serving 10,000 or fewer people which EPA sef
obtain public water system identification numbers to pi!
list. The selection is weighted by population served wit
categories of 10,000 to 3,301 people, 3,300 to 501 people
substitute systems from a replacement list of such systerl _.
systems hi the first list because a system on the first lisiffis closec
another system.
to
ent
idom
[the
water source ancPfBen by size
fewer people; a State may
r^ugh the same method for
3r purchases water from
Sampling means the act of collecting water fro
(from the applicable point from an intake otffireli to
cases, a residential tap) following prorjermetho<
contaminants.
Sampling Station(s) means a uriquslocation!
Screening Survey
analytical jg||hods
water; a
a random
conduct the
determine whe
density) to w;
conductedJolNne
Mate location in a public water system
ibSion line, or in some limited
ar contaminant or group of
samples are to be collected.
means sampling, testing^^^^^fuig of the listed contaminants for which
_ are receSly/developed potential for occurrence in drinking
|ipproxmiaTely^OO systern^So^i all monitored systems selected through use of
water system identification numbers. These systems must
dsted contaminants after public notice and comment to
listed contaminant-.occurs at a sufficient frequency and concentration (or
" .cluded^Sputure Assessment Monitoring. Screening Surveys will be
Contaminants.
State means, for the purpo&e|||pus section, each of the fifty States, the District of Columbia, Guam,
mejpmmonwealth of PllrWllico, the Northern Mariana Islands, the Virgin Islands, American
SarMa, the Trust Territories of the Pacific Islands, and any Indian Tribe which has status as a State
s Section 1451 ofjpe Safe Drinking Water Act for this program.
n for State Plan) means a State's portion of the national representative sample
non-tranisent non-community water systems serving 10,000 or fewer people and
"!5ieir entire water supply from another public water system which must monitor for
unreguated contaminants. A State Plan may be developed by a State's acceptance of EPA's
representative sample for that State, or by a State's selection of systems from a replacement list for
systems specified hi the first list that are closed, merged or purchase water from another system. A
State Plan also includes a process by which the State will inform each public water system of its
selection for the plan and of its responsibilities to monitor.
B-2
-------
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Testing means, for the purposes of this section and distinct from Pre-Screen Testing, the submission
and/or shipment of samples following appropriate preservation practices to protect the integrity of
the sample; the chemical, radiological, physical and/or microbiological analysis of samples; and the
reporting of the sample's analytical results for evaluation. Testing is a subset of activities defined
as monitoring.
Unregulated contaminants means chemical, microbiological,jgdiologi<
occur in drinking water or sources of drinking water that are
drinking water program. The Environmental Protection Agjgey (EPA)
these substances hi drinking water (i.e., maximum corjarninant lesRB or
requirements). EPA is required by Congress to estaMsh a prdpam to rri
unregulated contaminants hi public water systems to detemnne^ether they sho
ler substances that
jinderthefec
standards:
tecr
for future regulation to protect public health. The selecte
Table 1, the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulal
Vulnerable time means the quarter of the year that the _
State) determines a system, subset of systems, or alljptems in a S
listed contaminants, as a group, in the highest concent
its are listed irr
sidered
r.40(b)(5),
determination does not indicate that the liste^contaminant
certainty, but only that, after considering meJisled contarmnaS:
environmental conditions (soils, geolog^jffand usj5Jfmall|
capturing hi time those contaminants injirgher cqncentratioi
if the contaminants were to occur.
lit authority (usually a
tost likely to have the
^^ drinking water. This
will bejpTthe drinking water with
Leciprtation, system operation and
i has the best probability of
.ve to other quarters of the year,
B-3
-------
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
JB-4
-------
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Appendix C
Approved EPA and Equivalent Analytical Methods for
UCMR List 1 (1999) Contaminants
Organic Contaminants
Volatile Organic Compounds
D5790-95b:SM6210Dc
Semivolatile Organic Compounds
Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Pesticides
DDE
72-55-9
525-
EPA 508fl•
D5812-96b; 990.06 d
a^h-^t jljtlif
Nitrogen- and Phosphorus-ContainingPesticides
EPIC
759558-4
EEA525.2a;iEPA5078
D5475-93b;991.07d
Molinate
:22I2-67-l
D5475-93b;991.07d
Terbacit
'5902-51 -2 EPA 525.2a; EPA 507'
D5475-93b;991.07d
Acid Herbici
DCPA mono-aciaagpBate
887^54-75*
EPA 515. la; EPA 515.2 •
D5317-93 b; 992.32 d
DCPA di-aciWe
^2136-79-0
EPA 515.1a; EPA 515.2a D5317-93"; 992.32d
Microbiological
Aewmonas hydrophila
Membrane filter method
(in review)
Reserved:
The version
ofJeE
~3~- EPA methods being approved will be dependent upon the status of the
irovaljgf,new versions for compliance monitoring. If appropriate regulations approving new
compliance monitoring methods are completed prior to the promulgation of the
TCMK7th'e following versions of the above methods will be approved: Methods for the
Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water - Supplement III, EPA-600/R-95-131,
August 1995. NTISPB95-261616. Copies are available from the National Technical
Information Service (NTIS), U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield,
Virginia 22161. The toll-free number is 800-553-6847. If new regulations changing the versions
of methods being approved for compliance monitoring are not completed prior to the
promulgation of the UCMR, then the following versions of the EPA methods are being approved
for UCMR monitoring: EPA Methods 507, 508, and 515.1 are in Methods for the Determination
C-l
-------
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water, EPA-600/4-88-039, December 1988, Revised, July
1991. EPA Methods 515.2 and 524.2 are in Methods for the Determination of Organic
Compounds in Drinking Water - Supplement II, EPA/600/R-92/129, August 1992. These
documents are available from the NITS, at the address listed above. EPA Method^SOS.l and
525.2 are available from US EPA NERL-Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268, (5il§f569-7586.
Annual Book of ASTMStandards, 1996 and 1998, Vol. 11.02, Amerij
.Materials. Method D5812-96 is located in the Annual *
11.02. Methods D5790-95, D5475-93, and D5317-93 ajjjpated i
Standards, 1996 and 1998, Vol 11.02. Copies may beJpKained froc
Testing and Materials, 101 Barr Harbor Drive, WestJlmshohocke^P'A"
' for Testing and
Ids, 1998, Vol.
[Book of ASTM t
i Society for'
The 18* and 19* editions of Standard Methods for f|
1992 and 1995, American Public Health Association^
obtained from the American Public Health Associative
DC 20005.
Official Methods of Analysis ofAOAC (Associatior
International, Sixteenth Edition, 4* Revision, 19987
National Bank Lockbox, PO Box 75198, Baltir
800-379-2622.
CAS number is not applicable to micro]:
To be determined.
VnofWaien ^
Bon may be usec
ufteenth Street]
&r,
finaybe
Washington,
blume
21275
deal Chemists)
temational, First Union
otoll-free number is
C-2
-------
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Appendix D
Procedure for Determination of Method Detection Limits
Definition
The method detection limit (MDL) is defined as the minimi
can be measured and reported with 99% confidence that thespaiyte co:
zero and is determined from analysis of a sample hi a giwmatrix co:
a substance that
is greater
yte.
e. Th
that al
thod
types ranging from
Je. The MDL for an
^requires a complete,
jcessing steps of the
Scope and Application
This procedure is designed for applicability to a wide
reagent (blank) water containing analyte to wastewater
analytical procedure may vary as a function of sample
specific, and well defined analytical method. It is
analytical method be included in the determina^o
The MDL obtained by this procedure is useoo judge|m^^^mcanceof a single measurement of
a future sample. The MDL procedure waJSesignedffor apolicaS3^to a broad variety of
4SSi»' jffir ^fetiii iLt -jjOThtnV^
physical and chemical methods. To a£complish this, the proedure was made device- or
instrument-independent.
Procedure
l.Maki
:e of the^detection limit usmg^one of the following:
(a) Thfeconcehtration value tnatfcorresponds to an instrument signal/noise in the range of
\ * -> «a^u«MwMiH'3**l«Wtti. "OK. !W,4.3!«*
-------
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
3.
(a) If the MDL is to be determined in reagent (blank) water, prepare a laboratory standard
(analyte in reagent water) at a concentration which is at least equal to or in the same
concentration range as the estimated method detection limit. (TRecommendjKjtween 1
and 5 times the estimated method detection limit.) Proceed to Steik4.
(b) If the MDL is to be determined in another samplj
measured level of the analyte is in the recommend
estimated detection limit, proceed to Step 4. If tb
the estimated detection limit, add a known amo "
analyte between one and five times the estimate
analyte is greater than five times the estimated
(1) Obtain another sample with a lower le
possible.
(2) The sample may be used as is foi
analyte level does not i "*""'
water. The variance of
concentration increas^from i
these circumstancjfmay noj
concentratior
sample. If the
es the
is less
easured
ofanalyleWbrin
tectiojpimit If the
mit, there are
relof
vte in the same matrix if
(a) Take a minimum of sev^PHiquot
detection limit and processr,each mro
computations according teethe defin
unitfea blank meurement is
0 ,_^^^_ ^detection limit if the
es the MlSlplhe analyte in reagent
^^ ithod changes as the analyte
ie MDL determined under
y rejiecjipetnod variance at lower analyte
"the sam^S to be used to calculate the method
i^thejjnjire analytical method. Make all
results in the method reporting
r : the measured level of analyte,
'foreach sample aliquot analyzed. The average
id from the respective sample measurements.
(b) It
detection
desirable to evaluate the estimated method
Sjjnysroceeliffig with 4a. This will:
is entire procedure when the costs of analyses are high,
(2) insunphat the procedure is being conducted at the correct concentration. It is
quite possible that an inflated MDL will be calculated from data obtained at many
timesjfhe real MDL even though the level of analyte is less than five times the
;a!pilated method detection limit. To insure that the estimate of the method
:ection limit is a good estimate, it is necessary to determine that a lower
concentration of analyte will not result in a significantly lower method detection
limit. Take two aliquots of the sample to be used to calculate the method detection
limit and process each through the entire method, including blank measurements
as described above in 4a. Evaluate these data:
D-2
-------
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
(1) If these measurements indicate the sample is in desirable range for
determination of the MDL, take five additional aliquots and proceed. Use
all seven measurements for calculation of the MDL.
(2) If these measurements indicate the sample is not in cor
reestimate the MDL, obtain new sample as in 3
Calculate the variance (S2) and
measurements, as follows:
ige,
ler 4a or 4b.
w
where:
X;; i=l to n, are the analytical results*tnithe
n sample aliquots and £ refers to th£*sum of^
••mL
(a) Compute the MDL as follows:
od reporting units obtained from the
*^jm
.
t value appropriate for a 99% confidence level and a standard
-Rfegrees of freedom. (See Table 1.)
of the,replicate analyses.
The 95% coriffdencCffiterval estimates for the MDL derived in 6a are computed
faccording to the foTMwmg equations derived from percentiles of the chi square over
degrees of freedom distribution (xVdf).
LCL = 0.64:
JCL = 2.
and UCL are the lower and upper 95% confidence limits, respectively, based on
seven aliquots.
Optional iterative procedure to verify the reasonableness of the estimate of the MDL and
subsequent MDL determinations.
D-3
-------
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
(a) If this is the initial attempt to compute MDL based on the estimate of MDL
formulated in Step 1, take the MDL as calculated in Step 6, spike the matrix at this
calculated MDL and proceed through the procedure starting with Step 4.
(b) If this is the second or later iteration of the MDL calculation, use S2 from the current
MDL calculation and S2 from the previous MDL calculation to compute tbj&ratio. The
F-ratio is calculated by substituting the larger S2 into the numeraj|aJ52Aja(jPthe other into
the denominator S2B. The computed F-ratio is then compared wjis^jJIratio found in the
table which is 3.05 as follows:
if S2A/S2B<3.05, then compute the pooled
equation:
pooled
if S2A/S2u<3.05, respike at the mo
samples through the procedure
MDL does not permit qualitatiWSen
level, report the MDL as a^ncentrati,_
which permits qualitetivejJ^ntificatiSn.
(c) Use the 8^^ as calculate|||i 7b tq^pmpute
following
equation:
:alculate^^^M^l process the
>tep 4. If^^piost recent calculated
^hen^mples are spiked at that
it and previous MDL
Ffinal MDL according to the
(d)TB
folio
distrilptiol
.=0.72
JCL-1.65
irhere LCL and
on 14 aliquots.
derived in 7c are computed according to the
precentiles of the chi squared over degrees of freedom
the lower and upper 95% confidence limits, respectively, based
Table 1 ..jgludents' t Values at the 99 Percent Confidence Level
K§p3er of replicates
ppe- 7
8
9
Degrees of Freedom (n-1)
6
7
8
*(cn-l,.99)
3.143
2.998
2.896
T>-4
-------
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Number of replicates
10
11
16
21
26
31
61
00
Degrees of Freedom (n-1)
10
15
20
25
30
60
00
Reporting
The analytical method used must be specifically ide^tified^^^^Ber or title and the MDL for
each analyte expressed in the appropriale^methodlreporting^n^srif the analytical method
permits options which affect the meffioS detection limit, these conditions must be specified
with the MDL value. The samplei||prix usedfjjxf determinate MDL must also be identified with
MDL value. Report the mean^analyfe levelj^^AeM^and indicate if the MDL procedure was
iterated. If ^laboratory standard::or a samp^^^^^pmed a known amount analyte was used for
this determination, also repoc®e1mean receive
MDL of the andyigjjrMeagent
in the sampleswas below the determined MDL or exceeds 10 times the
*MEit*;fiiK
-------
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
APPENDIX E
Number of Small Systems in the Representative Sample By State.
This appendix provides the distribution of small systems required to o
monitoring and screening survey in each state/tribe. JB^
icssment
State/Tribe
Tribe EPA 1
Tribe EPA 2
Tribe EPA 4
Tribe EPA 5
Tribe EPA 6
Tribe EPA 7
Tribe EPA 8
-jfttss* <*»*»**j&MBftr
-JKS73.699
^1:43^985
, 1,067;'162
1706,010
California ^^
2,994,866
632,197
Connecticut
425,457
Washington DC
0
laware
139,300
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
2,086,859
1,277,566
22,625
210,684
4
21
0
15
10
43
30
18
0
Population
Served by
Small Systems
(10,000 or less
person), Pn
120
2,929
9,833
17,762
63,901
7,520
Numb
Systems
As
Monito:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
19
0
13
E-l
-------
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
State/Tribe
Population
Served by
Small Systems
(10,000 or less
person), Pn
Number of Small
Systems Conducting
Assessment
Monitoring*, A_
Number of Small
Systems
Conducting
Screening Surveys*,
E-2
-------
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
State/Tribe
South Carolina
Total
Population
Served by
Small Systems
(10,000 or less
person), Pn
55,91^083
Number of Small
Systems Conducting
Assessment
Monitoring*, A,,
Number of Small
Systems
Conducting
Screening Surveys*,
'
360
* This column represents thetjjBtal num
from the national representative
are 360 small sstems shown
ln each
rns allocated in individual State/Tribe
; 180 for each of the two Screening
large systems will also be required to monitor,
"E-3
------- |