Laboratory Certification Bulletin, March 2001
      United States
      Environmental Protection
Office of Water (MLK 140)   EPA 815-N-01 -002a  March 2001

                         TABLE OF CONTENTS

LabCert Bulletin	3

  In This Issue	3

  WS PT Schedules - 2001	4

  Data Reporting Requirements for Labs Participating in PT Studies	4

  Lab Approval for the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation	5

  NELAC Update	6

  Other NELAC News	6

  The NELAC Proficiency Testing Committee	7

  Program Policy and Structure Committee	8

  Rumors vs. Experience: ANELAC Success Story	8

  Chromogenic/Fluorogenic Substrate Tests	9

  QC for New Micro Methods	10

  Summary of the Final Radionuclides Regulation	11

  Radiological Drinking Water Contaminants, MCLs, and Methods	12

  Confusion Regarding the 80% Rule	13

  Websites	13

  New Methods Manual	14

  Annual Training for SDWA Laboratory Certification Officers	15

LabCert Bulletin
March 2001
In This Issue
This issue of the Labcert Bulletin highlights NELAC with articles written by Jeanne Hankins, the
NELAP Director, and the Chairs of the Program Policy and Structure Committee and the
Proficiency Testing Committee. Contents of these articles are entirely the authors, printed here as
information. Articles about the other Committees will be featured in future Labcert Bulletins.

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

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

Ed Glick 513 569-7939,
Patricia Hurr 513 569-7678,
Caroline Madding 513 569-7402,

Technical Support Center (MS-140)
26 W. Martin Luther King Dr.
Cincinnati, OH 45268
FAX: 513 569-7191

WS PT Schedules - 2001

The following are the schedules for NIST-accredited providers' Water Supply Studies for
chemistry and microbiology for the year 2001. For complete information regarding pricing,
results, due dates, and parameters involved in each study, please contact the provider directly.
Environmental Resource Associates is also offering PT studies for RadChem. Please contact
them directly for that schedule.
WS 2001 Proficiency Testing Studies - Opening Dates - Chemistry
Absolute Standards, Inc.
Accustandard, Inc.
Analytical Products Group, Inc.
Environmental Resource Assoc., Inc.
Ultra Scientific

WS-Asbestos -NY State DOH
1st Qtr
Jan, Feb
2nd Qtr
3rd Qtr
4th Qtr
Every Month




WSM 2001 Proficiency Testing Studies - Opening Dates - Microbiology
Chrisope Technologies, Inc.
Environmental Resource Associates
Microcheck, Inc.
1st Qtr
2nd Qtr
3rd Qtr
4th Qtr
Every Month
Data Reporting Requirements for Labs Participating in PT Studies
During the first year of privatization of the PT program, issues have arisen in reporting of data
from the laboratory to the provider and from the provider to the EPA database. PT providers are
currently working with NELAC to standardize study instructions and format to ensure that data
are reported in a consistent manner. Current areas of concern include: missing EPA Laboratory

ID codes, reporting incorrect units, and of special concern, reporting of non-detects. Following
are guidelines to help resolve these issues.

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

2) When reporting quantitative data ensure the proper units are used. Part of being able to
analyze the sample successfully is the ability to report your results correctly; wrong units =
wrong results = not acceptable.

3) When reporting data for a compound that is not detected use either:

a) < the laboratory detection limit (numeric character), or

b) < the laboratory reporting limit (numeric character).

4) When a contaminant is not being analyzed/determined, leave the field blank. Use of a zero (0)
or less than (<) could be interpreted that the contaminant was analyzed, but not found, and may
result in a "not acceptable."

5) Never, on any occasion, use an alpha character in the field where a numeric character should
be expected.

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

We feel the externalized program has progressed greatly in this past year, and are confident that
the program will continue to meet the needs of the certification community in the future.
Lab Approval for the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation
REMINDER: Generally, laboratories certified by the state or primacy agency for compliance
monitoring using methods as specified in the UCMR regulation are concurrently granted
approval to use those methods in support of UCMR monitoring requirements. Monitoring for
perchlorate is an exception, requiring laboratories to obtain formal EPA approval which is
contingent on having passed the performance testing program which was offered in the Spring
and Fall of 2000. Laboratories approved for perchlorate monitoring can be found listed on the
UCMR web  site.

Later this year, a laboratory approval process is expected to be announced for monitoring under
the Screening Survey, List 2 microbiological contaminant Aeromonas.  This will include

requirements for existing lab certification using an approved coliform membrane filtration
method as well as successful completion of an Aeromonas performance testing study.

NELAC Update
Jeanne Hankins, NELAP Director

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

Other NELAC News

The NELAC Vli Interim Meeting was held in Las Vegas in November 2000. Henry Longest,
ORD, was the keynote speaker. He stated that EPA will continue to support NELAC financially
with $500K funding annually. PBMS was also discussed at the opening plenary session since
NELAC is trying to be sure its standards are compatible with PBMS. The Agency is working to
come to a consensus on the PBMS issue.

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

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

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

The NELAC Proficiency Testing Committee
Barbara Burmeister, PT Committee Chair

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

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

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

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

Program Policy and Structure Committee
Dr. Kenneth Jackson, NY DOH

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

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

Rumors vs. Experience: A NELAC  Success Story
Carl Kirchner, Florida Department of Health

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

There should not be an inordinate amount of time placed into estimating the proper number of
man-days needed for an on-site laboratory assessment. NELAP Accrediting Authorities try to
make good estimates on how many assessors to send and how much time to spend at a
laboratory. But if a laboratory is in good shape, the on-site assessment process goes  much faster.
It is when the laboratory has problems that assessors must ask in-depth, detailed questions, and

review additional records so that the underlying causes of the laboratory problems can be found
and the proper NELAC Standards noted as deficiencies. This takes a considerable amount of
additional time and this fact has not surfaced in any of the rumors circulating in regard to the
time expended in an on-site assessment. For example, Florida DOH sent a four-person
assessment team on one trip because the two scheduled laboratory facilities seeking NELAP
accreditation had an incredibly huge number of fields of testing to assess.  Despite this daunting
task, we found one of the laboratories to be in such good shape that the four-person assessment
team did the entire assessment in one day. During the latest Florida (pre-NELAC) assessments
the assessors provided a lot of tips about what to expect for NELAC. It was clear that this facility
listened to the tips, and the quality system was well-prepared.

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

Chromogenic/Fluorogenic Substrate Tests

In the 4th Edition, March'97 Labcert Manual on page V-13, QC 5.6.8, the  language implies that
analysts need to prewarm samples to 35°C before starting the incubation time. This was never
necessary for the Colilert 24-hour test. The incubation period of 24 hours  for Colilert® includes
the time it takes for the samples to reach incubation temperature. This is based on both in-house
and outside evaluations. Low levels of total coliforms and E. coli will produce positives at 24
hours with Colilert without preheating. However, Colilert®-!8 P/A is an 18-22 hour test with  the
samples requiring an initial pre-warming step in a 35°C or 44.5°C water bath to bring the sample

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

1. Colilert P/A and Colilert Quanti-Tray

"The 24-hour incubation time for the Colilert 24-hour test includes the time it takes to bring the
sample temperature up to 35°C."

2. Colilert-18 P/A

"Prewarm in 35°C water bath for 20 minutes or 44.5°C water bath for 7-10 minutes."

3. Colilert-18 Quanti-Tray and Colisure

"Allow sample to equilibrate to room temperature (20-30°C)."

4. Colisure

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

QC for New Micro Methods
Stephanie Harris, USEPA Region 10

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

MI Agar and m-ColiBlue 24: These are MF procedures, so the following QC requirements will
   •   Media must be checked for appropriate pH and sterility.
   •   MF sterility check must be conducted on each funnel in use at the beginning and the end
       of each filtration series by filtering 20-30 mL of dilution water through the membrane
       filter and testing for growth. If the control indicates contamination, all data from affected
       samples must be rejected and an immediate re-sampling requested. A filtration series
       ends when 30 minutes or more elapse between sample filtration.
   •   Media controls must include a non-coliform organism, a total coliform organism, and E.
       coli at a minimum.
   •   Each lot of petri dishes should be checked for autofluorescence prior to use (if
   •   It is strongly recommended that confirmation broth be used to determine false
       positive/false negative rates for this method in individual laboratories and for individual
       matrices. This may also aid the analyst in identification of questionable colonies.
       Confirmation broths to be used are lactose broth and brilliant green lactose bile broth
       (BGLB) for total coliform confirmation and lactose broth and EC broth with MUG
       (EC/MUG) for E. coli confirmation. These confirmation steps may be discontinued at a
       later date, but for now their use is highly recommended.

Ecolite: This is a chromogenic/fluorogenic method developed by Charm Scientific and the
following requirements will apply:

   •   Each lot of test packets must be checked for sterility prior to use.
   •   Each lot of media must be checked for autofluorescence prior to use.

   •   For each lot of media, a quality control check must be performed by inoculating sterile
       water containing either a MUG-positive organism, a MUG-negative coliform, and a non-
       coliform organism into each of three Ecolite packets and analyzing them.
   •   The volume analyzed must be 100 mL ± 2.5 mL. Due to the flexibility of plastic bags, it
       is unlikely that the marked line will meet the required sample volume within acceptable
       tolerances. Consequently,  a sterile graduated cylinder or other calibrated sample vessel
       must be used to complete the sample transfer.
   •   Similar to the Colilert format, the sample should not be collected and analyzed in the
       same sample vessel. This is not appropriate considering the type of collection vessel
       provided and the inherent volume inaccuracy associated with a plastic bag. In addition,
       once  initially collected, under no circumstances should  part of the sample be decanted,
       either in the field or at the laboratory. This practice changes the bacterial density per unit
       volume and contributes to inaccurate bacteriological measurements. Therefore, a separate
       collection vessel will be needed that can hold a volume of 120 mL with adequate head
       space for proper sample mixing.
   •   Similar to Colilert when it was new on the market, 5% of total coliform positive/ E. coll
       positive and total coliform positive/E1. coli negative samples should be confirmed using
       standard coliform confirmation media. This should assist the laboratory in determining
       the false positive and false negative rates of this media for their laboratory and  their
       particular matrices.

Summary of the Final Radionuclides Regulation

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

   •   New  MCLs, MCLGs, monitoring and reporting requirements effective on December 8,
   •   An MCLG of zero for all radionuclides.
       Maintains the 1976 gross alpha particle MCL of 15 pCi/L (which includes radium-226
       and excludes uranium and radon).
       Maintains the 1976 MCL of 5 pCi/L for combined radium-226 and -228.
       Maintains the 1976 beta particle and photon radioactivity  MCL of 4 mrem/year.
       Establishes an MCL of 30 |ig/L for uranium for community water systems.
       Requires separate monitoring requirements for radium-226 and radium-228.
       Maintains the beta particle and photon radioactivity screening levels set in the 1976 rule
       for vulnerable systems (as deemed by the  state). Surface water systems serving greater
       than  100,000 persons will  no longer be required to monitor unless they are deemed
       Revises sampling, compliance, and monitoring waivers to fit the Standardized
       Monitoring Framework and requires sample collection at  entry points to the distribution
       system. States will have discretion in grandfathering existing distribution system data for
       determining initial monitoring baselines.

   •  Non-transient, non-community water systems will not be regulated for radionuclides in
      drinking water at this time (regulation will be considered under future regulatory review).

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

It is expected that 0.5% of the nation's 54,000 CWSs will need to take measures to lower radium
levels in their drinking water (~ 300 systems), and slightly less than 1% of CWSs will need to
take measures to reduce uranium in their drinking water (~ 500 systems). The Federal Register
notice and more information are available at the EPA Safewater website

Radiological Drinking Water Contaminants,  MCLs, and Methods
Adjusted Gross
Beta Particle
radioactive Cesium
radioactive Iodine
gamma emitters
15 pCi/L
4 mr



900.0,302, 7110 B,C
900.0,302, 7110 B
901.0, 901.1, 7500-Cs B, 7120, D 2459-72, D 3649-91
901.1 902.0,7500-1 B, C, D, 7120, D 3649-91, D 4785-
905.0, 303, 7500-Sr B
906.0, 306, 7500-3H B, D 4107-91
901.1, 902.0, 901.0, 7120, 7500-Cs B, 7500-1 B,
D3649-91, D 4785-88
Radium-226: 903.0, 903.1, 7500-Ra C 304,305, 7500-
Ra B, D3454-91, D2460-90
Radium-228: 904.0, 7500-Ra D
908.0, 908.17500-U B, 7500-U C, D2907-91, D3972-
90, D5174-91

Confusion Regarding the 80% Rule

Controlling 21 VOCs and successfully analyzing aPT sample containing all VOC analytes
annually is difficult. Realizing this, OGWDW allows the laboratory leeway in the analysis of the
VOC PT samples. Excluding vinyl chloride, if the laboratory passes 80% of the VOC analytes, it
can be certified for all of the VOCs. The 80% rule for VOCs has recently been made more
difficult to interpret since some PT providers may include THMs in the same vial as the VOCs.
The 80% Rule does not apply to the THMs if they are present in the VOC ampule. Currently
they must be passed as Total THMs.

In the M/DBP rule, to become effective in January 2002, the 80% rule applies to the DBF
contaminants by class. It was the intent of the rule writers that all THMs, HAAS, bromate and
chlorite be successfully analyzed each year and the 80% rule would apply to each class. Since
there are four THMs,  missing one would mean that only 75% of the contaminants were passed,
so the 80% rule cannot apply. The anions must all be successfully analyzed as they are individual
contaminants. Therefore, the 80% Rule can only apply to the HAAs and four of the five HAASs
must be successfully analyzed to be certified for all of the HAASs.

The DBF Rule also means that if a laboratory fails one THM, it cannot be certified for TTHMs.
This is a change from current certification practice.

This publication and much more can be found on the Office of Ground Water and Drinking
Water web page at This site
has information about drinking water regulations, current and future, as well as a page for lab
certification. The "Manual for the Certification of Laboratories Analyzing Drinking Water," the
errata sheets for this manual, past issues of the Labcert Bulletin and this issue can all easily be
found at this address.

The pertinent sections of the 2000 edition of the CFR are now available at While on the web site, you will see a new look for the
homepage. The new design will load faster and should make frequently-used info a bit easier to
find. Be sure to check the Topic Index (in the top right corner of the homepage) if you can't find
what you're seeking. Also, the entire source water protection section has been reworked. It is at

Another website that you may find helpful is the NIST/NVLAP website, The accredited PT providers are listed on
this site in the NVLAP Directory of Accredited Laboratories under the field of Chemical
Calibration: Providers of Proficiency Testing.

A Good Number to Have! Safe Drinking Water Hotline: (800) 426-4791

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

EPA Method 300.1 - Determination of Inorganic Anions in Drinking Water by Ion

EPA Method 314.0 - Determination of Perchlorate in Drinking Water by Ion Chromatography.

EPA Method 317.0 - Determination of Inorganic Oxyhalide Disinfection By-products in
Drinking Water Using Ion Chromatography with the Addition of a Postcolumn Reagent for
Trace Bromate Analysis.

EPA Method 321.8 - Determination of Bromate in Drinking Waters by Ion Chromatography
Inductively Coupled Plasma - Mass Spectrometry.

EPA Method 515.3 - Determination of Chlorinated Acids in Drinking Water by Liquid-Liquid
Extraction, Derivatization and Gas Chromatography with Electron Capture Detection.

EPA Method 526 - Determination of Selected Semivolatile Organic Compounds in Drinking
Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Capillary Column Gas Chromatography / Mass
Spectrometry (GC/MS).

EPA Method 528 - Determination of Phenols in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and
Capillary Column Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS).

EPA Method 532 - Determination of Phenylurea Compounds in Drinking Water by Solid Phase
Extraction and High Performance Liquid Chromatography with UV Detection.

EPA Method 549.2 - Determination of Diquat and Paraquat in Drinking Water by Liquid-Solid
Extraction and High Performance Liquid Chromatography with Ultraviolet Detection.

EPA Method 556 - Determination of Carbonyl Compounds in Drinking Water by
Pentafluorobenzylhydroxylamine Derivatization and Capillary Gas Chromatography with
Electron Capture Detection.

EPA Method 556.1 - Determination of Carbonyl Compounds in Drinking Water by Fast Gas

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

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