UCMR (1999) Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Foreword
Please note that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations
described in this document contain legally binding requirements. The answers
provided here do not substitute for those regulations, nor is this document
a regulation itself. It does not impose legally-binding requirements on
EPA, States, or the regulated community, and may not apply to a particular
situation based upon the circumstances. EPA decision-makers retain the
discretion to adopt approaches on a case-by-case basis that differ from
this FAQ document where appropriate. Any decisions regarding a particular
Public Water System (PWS) will be made based on the applicable statutes
and regulations. Therefore, interested parties are free to raise questions
and objections about the appropriateness of the application of an issue
in this document to a particular situation. EPA will consider whether
or not the recommendations or interpretations are appropriate in that
situation based on the law and regulations. EPA may change this FAQ document
in the future.
This FAQ document provides answers for many of the questions that have
been presented to the Unregulated Contaminants Monitoring Rule (UCMR)
Implementation Team during regulatory development and the first two years (2001-2002)
of the UCMR implementation. Some of these issues may not have always been
specifically or clearly addressed in the Preamble, the
Rule or other
implementation guidance materials or the question just may have been
asked on more than one occasion. Each question, with the associated EPA
response, has been generally categorized by topic. To quickly advance
to the respective section of the FAQ document, just click on the appropriate
section below.
A. Compliance Issues
B. Consecutive Public Water Systems
C. Data Handling and Review
D. Data Reporting: Safe Drinking Water Accession and Review System (SDWARS/UCMR)
D.1 General Questions
D.2 SDWARS/UCMR Registration
D.3 SDWARS/UCMR data submission
D.4 SDWARS/UCMR data review
E. EPA Notification of Requirements
F. Laboratory Approval/Analytical Methods
G. List 3, Prescreening Survey Issues
H. Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS)
/ Inventory Issues
I. Sampling Location and Monitoring Issues
J. State Issues about Data
K. State Monitoring Plans (SMPs)
L. Acronyms
If your question is not covered by any of the above topics, please contact
Dan Hautman (513-569-7274) for the UCMR implementation issues or Jeff
Bryan (202-564-3942) for SDWARS/UCMR database issues.
A. Compliance Issues
A.1 Question: Does the unregulated contaminant monitoring period
from January 2001 to December 2003 apply to monitoring all the contaminants
on List
1 at each sampling point?
Answer: Yes, all List 1 contaminants must be monitored at each
required sampling point. However, large systems (serving more than 10,000
persons) can select any 12 consecutive month period from January 2001
to December 2003 to monitor for all the List 1 contaminants. This flexibility
was included to allow large systems to coordinate unregulated contaminant
monitoring with their compliance monitoring. A public water system (PWS)
which has not initiated its monitoring by 2003 will be out of compliance.
A.2 Question: Will tracking system compliance be the responsibility
of the EPA Regional offices, EPA HQ, or the State?
Answer: System compliance tracking will include coordination between
EPA HQ and Regions, and may also be provided by some States.
A.3 Question:The UCMR states that Assessment Monitoring for List
1 contaminants must be conducted over a consecutive 12 month period from
2001 to 2003. Does unregulated contaminant monitoring need to be conducted
within a calendar year or when two monitoring events are 5 to 7 months
apart, does that constitute the "12-month period?"
Answer: The monitoring does not need to fall within a specific
calendar year and can overlap into an earlier or later year (e.g., in
July 2001 and in January 2002). By collecting these two samples at a groundwater
system, 5 to 7 months apart , the regulatory requirement of collecting
the samples during a "12-month" period is satisfied.
A.4 Question: Who is required to participate in the Screening
Surveys for the List 2 contaminants?
Answer: EPA randomly selected small and large systems to participate
in Screening Surveys for List 2 contaminants. The List 2 contaminants
are split into two Screening Surveys, one for chemical contaminants and
the other for the microbial contaminant Aeromonas. There are 180 small
systems and 120 large
systems selected for each type of List 2 monitoring.
B. Consecutive Public Water Systems
B.1 Question: If System A treats and sells water to System B,
which system has to monitor for the unregulated contaminants which have
a sampling location listed as entry point to the distribution system ("EPTDS")?
Answer: System A must monitor for contaminants with a sampling
location listed as the "EPTDS" in Table
1 of the UCMR. System B has no monitoring requirement for these "EPTDS"
locations.
B.2 Question: If System A treats and sells water to System B,
which system has to monitor for the unregulated contaminants which have
a sampling location listed as "Distribution System?"
Answer: If the sampling location is listed as "Distribution System",
then samples only need to be collected for each PWS required to do the
monitoring. For the UCMR (1999), this is exclusive to monitoring for Aeromonas.
Each PWS selected to monitor for Aeromonas will have to collect
3 samples per sampling event. These 3 samples are expected to be taken
from the distribution system "owned or controlled" by System A.
B.3 Question: If a small system is consecutive to a large system
should it have to monitor for distribution system locations? If so, does
EPA pay for it?
Answer: In general, no, the small system will not need to be monitored,
but the State and EPA have some discretion in these circumstances and
may require the monitoring if the small consecutive system is considered
an appropriate location for sampling. Even though the sampling location
may be located in the small system, the large system is responsible for
sample collection, analysis, and payment. The large system is also responsible
for reporting the results.
B.4 Question: Does the State have flexibility to change the sampling
locations listed in the UCMR?
Answer: Yes, there is flexibility for the State to do this. When
these situations arise, the State and/or EPA should be asked to assist
in making these determinations which can only be evaluated on a case-by-case
basis.
C. Data Handling and Review
C.1 Question: How will EPA provide small systems with their data
for review and record keeping?
Answer: EPA will provide the results in hard copy to the small
systems with a copy sent to the respective State.
C.2 Question: If small systems do not respond to EPA concerning
their results, what will EPA do?
Answer: There is no "acceptance" of small systems data per se,
because EPA's lab will analyze the samples. Since EPA is paying for the
analyses, no "approval" by the PWS is required. Once the PWS receives
the results, the data will be considered valid after a 30-day review period.
Small systems with questions about their data are asked to contact the
implementation contractor, GLEC (231-941-2230).
C.3 Question: How will EPA provide a copy of data to the States?
Answer: For small systems, EPA is mailing a printed report of the
data to the respective State. For large systems, the State determines
how it would like to receive data. States can review the approved chemical
data from their large systems through SDWARS/UCMR after they have established
an account via CDX. The implementation contractor, GLEC, will provide
an electronic copy of the Aeromonas data to the respective state
after the data are received by EPA (see C.8).
C.4 Question: Will EPA provide health effects language for Consumer
Confidence Reports (CCR) or Public Notification (PN) use?
Answer: No. For the CCR, health effects language is generally only
required when there is a violation—the contaminant is detected above
the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL). This can't occur for unregulated
contaminants, since they have no MCLs. However, EPA does provide information
on likely sources and potential health effects from fact
sheets and health advisories. The only requirements of the PN specific
to unregulated contaminants is to indicate that the results are available
and to provide a contact phone number for any interested party wishing
to obtain more information.
C.5 Question: If an unregulated contaminant becomes regulated,
would the PWS be allowed to use the data from the UCMR (1999) as the initial
monitoring profile?
Answer: This would be determined during the rule-making process
to establish a national primary drinking water standard for the contaminant.
C.6 Question: We have been testing extensively for MTBE and perchlorate
during the past few years. Will the grandfather clause allow these data
to be used to meet the requirements of the UCMR?
Answer: The UCMR has a grandfather clause for data (§141.35(g)).
However, to meet the regulatory requirements of the UCMR, this data must
meet the reporting requirements of §141.35 in the revised
UCMR (September 17, 1999). This is so that EPA can establish a nationally
consistent database for making decisions relative to these contaminants.
EPA certainly encourages the use of existing data to save resources.
C.7 Question: How and when will EPA request that water systems
take water quality parameter samples?
Answer: Water quality parameter samples are only required to be
collected in conjunction with microbial contaminant samples. They will
be taken at the same time and place as the microbial contaminants; i.e.,
at 3 points in the distribution system for each of 6 months during the
year. Only 300 (180 small and 120 large) randomly selected PWSs are required
to take UCMR water quality parameter samples, and this will occur with
the Aeromonas monitoring in 2003.
C.8 Question: What is the procedure for reporting Aeromonas
data?
Answer: Prior to the start of the Screening Survey for Aeromonas
in January 2003, EPA will provide instructions to each selected large
system on how to report monitoring data. The large PWS will receive an
e-mail with six Microsoft Excel spreadsheets attached. These spreadsheets
will correspond to each month in which the PWS is to collect Aeromonas
samples. In addition, the PWS will receive a follow-up e-mail near the
beginning of each month for which it is to sample that contains the appropriate
spreadsheet and a reminder of their monitoring requirement. The PWS will
collect its Aeromonas samples and enter the relevant water quality
data into the spreadsheet. The samples and spreadsheet will be sent to
an approved Aeromonas laboratory. The laboratory will analyze the
samples and fill in the relevant portion of the spreadsheet. It will then
send the spreadsheet back to the PWS. The PWS will approve the data, recording
within the spreadsheet the PWS approval date. The PWS will then send the
spreadsheet to EPA as an e-mail attachment. EPA will forward a copy of
the spreadsheet to the respective State. Any large system that does not
have access to e-mail will receive its reporting sheets from EPA via regular
mail and these PWSs will return the completed sheets to EPA via regular
mail. Small systems required to monitor for Aeromonas will receive
their results in an EPA prepared report sent directly to them.
D. Data Reporting: Safe Drinking Water Accession and Review System (SDWARS/UCMR)
D.1 General Questions
D.1.a Question: Where does a user go to report unregulated chemical
contaminant monitoring data electronically to EPA? (See C.8 for instructions
on reporting Aeromonas data)
Answer: SDWARS/UCMR is accessed through the CDX
home page (http://cdx.epa.gov).
D.1.b Question: What should a user do if they forget their CDX
User Name and/or password?
Answer: In either case access can be restored immediately. Call
the CDX Help Desk between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. (EST/EDT) Monday through
Friday. Call the toll-free line at 1-888-890-1995.
D.1.c Question: What software and/or equipment is needed to use
CDX?
Answer: Users should ensure that they have the following before
getting started:
- Personal Computer with a 486 MHz processor or better, Pentium processor
or equivalent is recommended.
- One of the following versions of Microsoft Windows operating systems:
Microsoft Windows 95B with Y2K Service Pack installed (Original Equipment
Manufacturer Service Release 2), Windows 98, Windows 2000 or Windows
NT4.0 (Service Pack 5).
- To determine which version of Windows you are using, on the desktop
click Start | Settings | Control Panel | System. The
system version is listed under the General tab.
- To determine if you have the Y2K upgrade installed in Windows 95
environments, check for the presence of the Y2KW95.txt file in the
Windows folder by going to Windows Explorer, select View, then click
on Details, look in C:\Windows folder to find the Y2KW95.txt file.
- Internet access with an e-mail address.
- Supported Web browser: Internet Explorer 5.5 or higher with 128-bit
encryption strength.
- To determine which version of Internet Explorer you are using, on
the toolbar click Help | About Internet Explorer. This
will also provide the encryption strength (Cipher Strength) supported
by your version of Internet Explorer.
- To update to 128-bit encryption strength, Microsoft provides updates
for Internet Explorer. These updates can be downloaded from Microsoft.
- Adobe Acrobat Reader 4.0 or higher.
- Printer.
For more information, call the CDX Help Desk at 1-888-890-1995.
D.2 SDWARS/UCMR Registration
D.2.a Question: What is the process for registering with CDX?
Answer: In order to set up your account with CDX, do the following:
- Use the Internet, via Internet Explorer 5.5 or higher, to access the
CDX home page (http://cdx.epa.gov).
- Select the option for "If you are new to CDX and wish to register,
please click here." You will be prompted to select a user name
and password. You will also be asked for your contact information, your
organization and the role you will play for your organization for SDWARS/UCMR.
- Supply a "sponsor letter" from your employer indicating that you are
authorized to act on behalf of your organization. Samples of the sponsor
letter are available online (see D.2.e).
- Create a question that the CDX Help Desk can use to authenticate you
if you forget your password.
D.2.b Question: How long does it take to register?
Answer: It takes about 20 minutes.
D.2.c Question: What happens after registration?
Answer: After successful completion of the registration process
and the required sponsor letter has been submitted and approved, the account
will be activated and the user will be able to access SDWARS/UCMR within
CDX.
D.2.d Question: How long does it take to activate my account?
Answer: Your CDX account is active after completion of online
registration. Your SDWARS/UCMR account is activated after receipt and
approval of your sponsor letter.
D.2.e Question: What does a sponsor letter look like?
Answer: Sample sponsor letters are available. You may view a sample
Lab Sponsor
Letter or a sample PWS
Sponsor Letter in Adobe Acrobat format.
D.2.f Question: What must I do when my password expires?
Answer: Before your password expires, you should be prompted to
change your password. Your password must be changed every 90 days.
D.2.g Question: What must I do to renew my account?
Answer: Before your account expires, you will be prompted to reregister
and asked to renew your account.
D.2.h Question: Whom do I contact if there is a problem?
Answer: Three support options are available:
- By telephone: Person-to-person telephone support is available from
8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. (EST/EDT) Monday through Friday. Call the CDX
Help Desk at 1-888-890-1995.
- By e-mail: Send e-mail to EPACDX@CSC.COM
with "UCMR Tech Support" in the Subject line.
- By fax: Assistance requests are accepted 24 hours a day at 301-429-3905.
Support personnel will respond to faxed requests Monday through Friday
from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. (EST/EDT).
The Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
UCMR Web site might also be helpful in answering questions about reporting.
D.2.i Question: Where can I get an e-mail account if I do not
have one?
Answer: In order to complete the registration process and therefore
to use SDWARS/UCMR, you will need to have an e-mail address. If you do
not already have one, there are free services available. There are many
free e-mail services.
D.2.j Question: What is my PWSID assigned by EPA?
Answer: Your PWSID is a 9-character alphanumeric code. It begins
with the 2-letter postal abbreviation for your state, followed by a 7-digit
number. You can use the Safe Drinking Water Query Form to search the SDWIS
database to find your PWSID. Click on your state, and search for
your PWS by name or county.
D.2.k Question: What is my Laboratory ID assigned by EPA?
Answer: The Laboratory ID is a 7-character alphanumeric code.
It begins with the 2-letter postal abbreviation for your State, followed
by a 5-digit number. It may be obtained in one of the following ways:
- Go back to a past PE Study. It will be on the results form, as well
as the reporting form.
- Contact your State Certification Officer.
- Contact the Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 1-800-426-4791.
- Contact Charles Feldmann, EPA, at 513-569-7671.
D.2.l Question: Why hasn't my SDWARS/UCMR account been activated?
Answer: There are several reasons for this, but the most common
is that you did not enter a proper Program ID during the registration
process. The Program ID for a PWS must be its EPA-assigned PWSID (see
D.2.j). The Program ID for a laboratory must be its EPA-assigned Laboratory
ID (see D.2.k).
D.2.m Question: I'm a State. How do I get registered so that I
can review unregulated chemical contaminant data?
Answer: The registration process is slightly different for State
and EPA users. They are all preregistered or must be nominated by a peer
(see J.6).
D.3 SDWARS/UCMR data submission
D.3.a Question: As a laboratory, how do I submit chemical data
to SDWARS/UCMR through CDX?
Answer: Using your self-assigned User Name and password, you will
log in to CDX. You will submit your chemical data by one of three methods:
Web form, XML file, or flat file.
D.3.b Question: Which submission method should I use?
Answer: Laboratories are free to choose their method for submitting
chemical data from the following options:
Submission Method |
What is it? |
Is it best for you? |
What does it require? |
Web form |
A form we provide to your account on the Web. |
If you currently report your data manually
it allows you to keystroke your data on the Internet. |
Filling out the screens as they are presented.
See the Web
form guidance (*.pdf file). |
XML file |
eXtensible Markup Language provides formats/structures
used for Internet-based electronic commerce. |
If you are using XML for other business activities
and store your data in a database; or if you are creating a new system
to store this data. |
See the XML
guidance (*.pdf file). |
Flat file
|
A specified ASCII-based file structure that
is positional. |
If you are using a database or spreadsheet
to manage the data; or if the data is not overly complex; or if you
don't want to manually enter the data into a Web form. |
See the flat
file guidance(*.pdf file). |
D.3.c Question: If we use subcontract laboratories to help support
our clients unregulated contaminant analytical needs, do the subcontract
laboratories need to report those data?
Answer: Yes, only the subcontract laboratory should report the
data. The SDWARS/UCMR reporting system was designed to minimize reporting
errors. Therefore, data can not be reported many times through multiple
parties. The laboratory responsible for analyzing unregulated chemical
contaminants is also responsible for posting these data for their client
PWSs, into the SDWARS/UCMR system.
D.3.d Question: When a laboratory has chemical data to post to
SDWARS/UCMR, how will the data be correctly associated to a specific monitoring
location at a PWS?
Answer: The key referential elements that laboratories will need
include: PWSID, Facility ID and Sampling Point ID. These elements define
a specific monitoring location at a PWS and must be listed in SDWARS/UCMR.
They must be known by both the PWS and the laboratory which is posting
these data. Active PWS registrants in the SDWARS/UCMR can review and can
update their respective inventory specific to their unregulated contaminant
monitoring locations (Facility ID and Sampling Point ID). Active laboratory
registrants in the SDWARS/UCMR can review the unregulated contaminant
monitoring location data for any PWS, but the laboratory can not update
any of the inventory information.
D.3.e Question: Does a PWS have to collect unregulated chemical
contaminant monitoring samples from all the facilities listed in SDWARS/UCMR?
Answer: Only EPTDS monitoring locations are required for unregulated
chemical contaminant monitoring. Additional inventory data are displayed
in SDWARS/UCMR because it was populated with data from SDWIS-Fed. (SDWIS-Fed
should include all facilities at the PWS.) This should ensure that any
potential monitoring location is captured by SDWARS/UCMR. All of the identified
facilities are not necessarily expected to be monitored. Many PWSs have
Sampling Point IDs that have been defined by their State as the unregulated
contaminant monitoring locations. When facilities or sampling points are
omitted or incorrectly listed in SDWARS/UCMR, the PWS will need to add
or correct the information in SDWARS/UCMR. Your State Drinking Water Administrator
may be able to help you with this process. (See H.2 for more information.)
D.3.f Question: What is the significance of facilities with no
Sampling Point IDs defined?
Answer: SDWIS-Fed does not contain information about sampling points.
Sampling Point IDs were to be supplied by the States during the development
of SDWARS/UCMR. Some States have chosen not to partner with EPA. Hence,
there are missing Sampling Point IDs.
D.3.g Question: What happened to the large flat file I submitted?
Answer: Large files (>200 KB) submitted to SDWARS/UCMR are put
in a different queue to be processed overnight. Flat files are converted
to XML before being loaded into SDWARS/UCMR. This will expand a flat file
size by about a factor of 15 (e.g., the 200 KB file is expanded to 3 MB).
If the file is too large, it still may not get loaded during the off-peak
time and may get caught in an infinite loop. Please try to limit the size
of the files you submit electronically.
D.3.h Question: I entered my results and hit the "Enter" key,
but nothing happened. What happened?
Answer: SDWARS/UCMR is a mouse-driven data entry system. The "Enter"
key does not work. This prevents the user from entering partial data.
Also, many screens have more than one possible option. The user must select
how they want to leave the screen by using the mouse to select the appropriate
option after entering all the data.
D.4 SDWARS/UCMR data review
D.4.a Question: Why does search take a long time to display the
results?
Answer: The result of the search page displays a lot of information.
Several factors affect the speed that data are displayed.
- Server use: The busier the SDWARS/UCMR server, the longer it will
take to complete a search. Try to do searches for large amounts of data
at off-peak times (after 7 p.m. EST/EDT).
- Size of the search: The more information requested or the broader
the scope of the search the longer the time that SDWARS/UCMR will take
to display your results. Limit your search as much as possible.
- Communication lines: The speed of the Internet connection will affect
how quickly data is retrieved. If the search is large or if you have
a slow connection, the search may "time out".
D.4.b Question: Why did the results of my search produce a page
that has display errors? This results in a page that is nonfunctional
(i.e., I can't approve results).
Answer: The result of the search page displays a lot of information.
Several factors affect the display of data:
- PC memory: The amount of memory your PC has may affect the display
of the data.
- Number of applications running: If several applications are running,
then your machine may not be able to display the requested information
properly.
D.4.c Question: What is a Range Check?
Answer: A Range Check is a data interval SDWARS/UCMR uses to compare
data entered by the laboratory to meet certain logic criteria. These were
created to reduce the number of data entry errors in SDWARS/UCMR. All
data entered into SDWARS/UCMR must conform to the "Must be" criteria specified
in the table below. When data violates a "Must be" condition, attempting
to submit the data to the database will trigger an error message and the
record will not be entered. If data is outside one of the "Should be"
conditions the database will accept the data but it will request that
the laboratory confirm the data value is correct or change the data value
before allowing the record to be approved.
Element
|
Criteria
|
"Must be"
(an impossible entry that
needs to corrected)
|
"Should be"
(a suspicious but possible entry that should be verified)
|
Accuracy
|
> 0 or N/A
<32,000
|
< 200%
> 10%
|
Collection Date
|
Not later than the current date
Not earlier than 1/1/85
|
|
Extraction/Analysis Date
|
Not later than the current date
Not earlier than the collection date
|
< 60 days from collection date
|
Precision
|
> 0, MISSING, or N/A
<32,000
|
< 99%
|
Sample Result (Value)a
|
> MRL or N/A
< 32,000
|
<10 x MRL
|
Spiking Concentration
|
>0 or N/A
<32,000
|
< 200
|
a Either the less than
(<) MRL box must be checked or a sample result value entered, but
not both. Since Method EPA 515.3 can't quantify the DCPA acid degredates,
the system will not allow a value above the MRL to be reported for
that analyte.
Note: N/A indicates "not analyzed." If an analyte is not analyzed
in a batch, then precision, accuracy, and spiking concentration must
be N/A. If an analyte is not analyzed for the sample then the result
value is N/A. |
D.4.d Question: What should be done when a "Should be" range check
is triggered?
Answer: Range checks based on the "Should be" criteria listed in
D.4.c require the laboratory to verify the data entry. The laboratory
can instruct SDWARS/UCMR to override the range check or correct the data
if it is wrong. Each notice of a "Should be" range check must be independently
verified. There is no global override function, nor is the override function
available on the results of search screen. To override the range check,
the lab must locate the responsible record(s) in SDWARS/UCMR and click
on the Range Check link to the right of the data. The range check(s)
associated with the record will be shown and provides each with a check
box to indicate if the lab wishes to override the range check. More information
on range checks is available in the Web
Form Implementation Guidance (Vol II) for SDWARS/UCMR and in the on-line
tutorial.
D.4.e Question: How and when will data entered into SDWARS/UCMR
by labs be purged if "Rejected" by a PWS during their review?
Answer: Data, once identified by the PWS as "Rejected", is marked
for immediate deletion from the database.
D.4.f Question: What should a PWS do if they have no Internet
access (i.e., how will they review/approve their data)?
Answer: No special software is needed (it's all Web-based) such
that a PWS with access to any Internet-equipped computer (e.g., the local
library) would be able to access SDWARS/UCMR. As an additional alternative,
the PWS could designate a third party or even their laboratory with the
authority to approve their data as a representative of the PWS. The PWS
would need to submit a sponsor letter identifying this representative
by name and CDX User Name. The representative will also need to register
as the "Approver" for that PWS in CDX.
D.4.g Question: What is the purpose of the different "Roles" in
CDX?
Answer: There are three roles: "Reviewer", "Submitter", and "Approver".
The "Reviewer" can not enter data nor approve data, but can only view
data for their entity. The "Submitter" is allowed to enter data, but not
approve data. The "Approver" can enter and approve data.
D.4.h Question: Why can't I approve my own data?
Answer: The ability to approve data is dependent upon the role
you submitted on your sponsor letter. Only users with the role "Approver"
may actually approve data. For this reason, each entity (PWS and Laboratory)
must have at least one user with a defined role of "Approver".
E. EPA Notification of Requirements
E.1 Question: Will EPA do direct mailings to large systems to
notify them about the UCMR or to provide them with guidance materials?
Answer: Maybe. It will depend on what responsibilities a State
assumes. Several States have assumed this responsibility as part of the
Partnership Agreement with EPA to assist with the UCMR implementation.
For those States where notification was not adopted, EPA issued notification
letters and guidance materials to all affected systems. EPA provided a
template letter with supplemental guidance materials to all other States
which had agreed to notify their respective systems. Guidance
materials are also available on-line.
E.2 Question: When will the List 2 and List 3 systems (300 and
200 systems respectively) be notified of their participation?
Answer: As mentioned in E.1, EPA notified affected systems which
were required to conduct List 2 chemical monitoring in 2002 in those States
which did not adopt the notification responsibility. In 2002, EPA also
issued notification letters to those affected systems which are required
to conduct List 2 Aeromonas monitoring in 2003 in those States
which did not adopt the notification responsibility. No List 3 monitoring
has been mandated at this time, consequently no notifications have been
issued.
F. Laboratory Approval/Analytical Methods
F.1 Question: For states where the State laboratory normally performs
all routine analyses for large systems, but the State laboratory will
not be performing unregulated contaminant analyses, how are large systems
to be supported? Should the State identify commercial labs, or will the
labs contracting to EPA for small systems be able to fill this need?
Answer: Many State laboratories are able to support List 1 analyses,
since the List 1 contaminants' methods are already in use for compliance
monitoring. If not, the large systems would need to contract for these
analyses and testing with commercial labs. Certainly, these large systems
could contract with the same labs that EPA is using for small systems'
sample analyses, but EPA is not paying for the analyses for large systems.
The State can identify certified commercial labs which support the analyses
for regulated compliance parameters. The labs must meet the approval requirements
of the UCMR. See F.2 and F.3 or go to the UCMR
Laboratory approval page for more details.
F.2 Question: How can a PWS best determine whether a laboratory
is approved to support their unregulated contaminant assessment monitoring
needs?
Answer: A PWS should be able to determine this from discussions
with the laboratory. For all List 1 contaminants, except perchlorate,
if a laboratory is certified under 40
CFR §141.28 for compliance analysis using an associated analytical
method in Table 1 of 40
CFR §141.40, the laboratory is approved to perform unregulated contaminant
monitoring analysis using any of the methods listed in the UCMR
table as being approved for that unregulated contaminant. See F.3 regarding
perchlorate. For unregulated contaminant monitoring purposes, certification
may be by a certifying authority (State or Region). As with compliance
monitoring, it is the responsibility of the PWS to ensure that they are
using an appropriate laboratory. They may do so by asking the laboratory
to demonstrate that it meets the approval requirements for the UCMR by
providing evidence of the certification described above.
F.3 Question: How can a PWS identify labs approved by EPA for
perchlorate analysis under the UCMR?
Answer: EPA set up an approval process for perchlorate analysis
under the UCMR. This was based on criteria promulgated in "Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring Regulation for Public Water Systems; Analytical
Methods for Perchlorate and Acetochlor; Announcement of Laboratory Approval
and Performance Testing (PT) Program for the Analysis of Perchlorate"
(65
FR 11372). Perchlorate has unique requirements since laboratories
are not certified for the approved perchlorate method (EPA Method 314.0).
For all other assessment monitoring contaminants, see F.2. EPA has compiled
a list of approved
perchlorate laboratories and associated contact information.
F.4 Question: Does approval of a laboratory for unregulated contaminants
analyses depend on that laboratory's certification status in their State?
Answer: No. The UCMR is a direct-implementation rule rather than
a State-primacy rule. The approval process (see F.2, F.3, F.6 and F.7)
for the UCMR is based on certification by a certifying authority (State
or Region).
F.5 Question: Does a State need to update its certification program
for the unregulated contaminants?
Answer: No. A State does not need to update its certification program
for unregulated contaminants.
F.6 Question: How can a PWS determine whether a laboratory is
approved to support their UCMR Screening Survey needs for the chemical
contaminants?
Answer: A PWS should be able to determine this from discussions
with the laboratory. For List 2 chemical contaminants that are determined
using EPA Method 526 or 528, the laboratory must be certified under 40
CFR §141.28 for compliance analyses using EPA Method 525.2. For List
2 chemical contaminants that are determined using EPA Method 532, the
laboratory must be certified under 40 CFR §141.28 for compliance
analyses using EPA Method 549.1 or 549.2. For UCMR purposes, certification
may be by any drinking water certifying authority (State or Region). As
with compliance monitoring, it is the responsibility of the PWS to ensure
that they are using an appropriate laboratory. They may do so by asking
the laboratory to demonstrate that it meets the approval requirements
for the UCMR by providing evidence of the certification described above.
F.7 Question: How can a PWS identify labs approved by EPA for
List 2 Aeromonas analyses under the UCMR?
Answer: Aeromonas samples must be analyzed by laboratories
that are approved by EPA to perform analyses using EPA Method 1605. In
order to receive approval, laboratories must: 1) be certified under 40
CFR §141.28 to perform coliform indicator bacteria compliance analyses
using an EPA approved membrane filtration procedure, and 2) have successfully
passed an EPA performance testing (PT) study for EPA Method 1605. EPA
has compiled a list of approved
Aeromonas laboratories and associated contact information.
G. List 3, Prescreening Survey Issues
G.1 Question: Can States decide not to address List 3 contaminants
in the Partnership Agreement and wait to deal with them when analytical
methods are approved to test for them?
Answer: Yes. The "Model" Partnership Agreement describes the complete
list of activities that a State and EPA could agree to do. At this time,
no monitoring schedule for List 3 contaminant monitoring has been promulgated
during this 5-year (2001-2005) listing cycle. If there are approved methods
for List 3 contaminant testing within this listing cycle, and EPA decides
that the monitoring can be conducted, including the selection of vulnerable
systems, then discussions will be held on this matter with the States.
EPA still needs to prepare the guidance for selecting "vulnerable systems"
for the purposes of monitoring the List 3 contaminants.
G.2 Question: The UCMR states that List 3 contaminants will require
method development. How should systems prepare?
Answer: Systems do not need to prepare for List 3 monitoring at
this time. EPA is conducting research on the List 3 contaminant methods.
EPA does not anticipate that these contaminants will be ready for monitoring
during this listing cycle.
G.3 Question: Do the States notify the systems that have been
identified for inclusion in the prescreen testing of the sampling requirements
before they notify EPA which systems are included?
Answer: This decision is left to the discretion of the State. This
can be done before, concurrently, or after notification to EPA.
G.4 Question: Who decides how many vulnerable systems the State
needs to identify?
Answer: The rule sets the minimum number of vulnerable systems
for List 3 contaminants at 5 systems per state and the maximum at 25 systems
per state. It is at the State's discretion exactly how many they will
include. The final number of systems for the Pre-Screening Survey will
be 200, taken from across the country, and they will be selected at random
from those systems provided by each State.
H. Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) / Inventory Issues
H.1 Question: Should States confirm contact, address and telephone
information for systems listed in the large system inventory, similar
to the information to be checked for the small systems in the State Monitoring
Plan (SMP)?
Answer: The State is encouraged to correct the contact, address,
and telephone information for large systems to facilitate implementation
of the UCMR.
H.2 Question: How will SDWARS/UCMR be populated with inventory
data?
Answer: The inventory data in SDWIS will be used to initially populate
SDWARS/UCMR. After this initial population, the PWS will need to update
the inventory in SDWARS/UCMR so that it is current for unregulated contaminant
monitoring. Since they are two separate systems, updating SDWARS/UCMR
will have no effect whatsoever on inventory data in SDWIS.
H.3 Question: How can States be assured that no change to SDWIS
will be initiated unless they agree that the change was warranted?
Answer: EPA recognizes that updating SDWIS is specifically a State
function. EPA is creating a parallel database (SDWARS/UCMR) to be used
only for reporting unregulated contaminant data. Only the State has the
authority to change SDWIS data.
H.4 Question: Shouldn't any contact between EPA and the systems
include the State, to avoid problems between SDWIS-Fed and the State databases?
Answer: SDWIS can only be altered by State directive. Contact between
EPA and PWSs will be communicated to the State if the State has entered
into a Partnership Agreement with EPA.
I. Sampling Location and Monitoring Issues
I.1 Question: What are the options for sampling if a PWS's status
changes during the monitoring? For example, the PWS begins to purchase
all of its water from another PWS.
Answer: If a PWS anticipates its status will change to a consecutive
system (purchasing all of its water) or it will become inactive before
or during the year it planned to conduct unregulated contaminant monitoring,
the PWS should contact its State or EPA. If the status will not change
until after the year monitoring was conducted, then the UCMR's requirements
are applicable to the PWS.
I.2 Question: If a small system misses sampling, samples incorrectly,
or collects samples at the end of the vulnerable period and the samples
are not valid, and the vulnerable period is already over, what should
be done?
Answer: Some problems will undoubtedly occur. This is why EPA and
many States have expressed interest in the States collecting samples from
the few small systems they will actually have in the program in a given
year. In general, if a system has not submitted its samples, or if samples
are taken incorrectly, or are damaged in shipment or at the lab, the EPA
implementation contractor will be in contact with the system or State
to arrange for re-sampling, as soon as possible. (The UCMR calls for resampling
within 14 days of receipt of the replacement sampling kit.) The intent
of this program is to gather good quality data. A difficult question is
what to do when resampling is necessitated for the vulnerable period,
and the period is already over. Because of many considerations EPA does
not want to postpone resampling to the next year. Resampling should be
performed as soon as possible (e.g., in August), and this should not result
in a great loss of data quality, particularly for the few samples it will
likely affect.
I.3 Question: Can States receive fees from small systems for sample
collection and analysis for unregulated contaminant monitoring?
Answer: The State can certainly continue to collect samples, but
the samples for small systems must be sent to the EPA contract laboratory.
EPA pays for sample shipping and analysis for these systems. Whether or
not the State may continue to collect its fee for sample collection, and
the fee structure is a matter of State authority.
I.4 Question: Will EPA pay the State to collect samples at an
Index System?
Answer: No. The administrative costs of such small "grants" are
typically prohibitive for both States and EPA. Index System sampling is
being done by the implementation contractor, Great Lakes Environmental
Center (GLEC). The State is welcome to accompany the contractor on any
Index System sampling.
I.5 Question: Can a State reschedule the timing of Assessment
Monitoring sampling at large systems to address concerns about laboratory
capacity?
Answer: Yes.
I.6 Question: What are the sampling locations within systems for
unregulated contaminant monitoring?
Answer: For chemical monitoring, the sampling location is designated
as the entry point to the distribution system (EPTDS). These sites are
typically keyed to the Phase II/V sites that the States and systems have
already approved and determined are representative. Using the Phase II/V
sites should be clear for the systems and should provide data consistent
with the compliance program. For sampling locations designated as "Distribution
System" in the UCMR, the locations are again keyed to sites the State
and systems have previously defined for other sampling (e.g., total coliforms,
TTHM/HAA5). Three sites are designated:
- the midpoint in the distribution system, such as the representative
total coliforms location;
- the location of the maximum residence time; and
- the location of lowest disinfectant residual.
I.7 Question: When a system has both groundwater and surface water
sources, how will the monitoring be done?
Answer: If the surface water sources enter the distribution system
at locations separate from the groundwater sources, the surface water
supplies must be monitored four times (four consecutive quarters) and
the groundwater supplies must be monitored twice, 5 to 7 months apart.
The sampling locations should be the entry points to the distribution
system (EPTDS). If the surface water and groundwater are mixed or blended
before the water enters the distribution system, then the monitoring must
be done every 3 months for four consecutive quarters.
I.8 Question: Will testing for the List 2 and List 3 contaminants
fall within the same time frame of 2001-2003?
Answer: List 2 Screening Survey for chemical contaminants occurred
in 2001 at the selected small systems and in 2002 for the selected large
systems. List 2 Screening Survey for Aeromonas, will occur in 2003
at all the selected systems. List 3 monitoring has not been mandated at
this time.
I.9 Question: If a small system in the State Monitoring Plan (SMP)
is listed as a "groundwater" system and purchases surface water at different
times during the year, how should it be included in the plan? How should
it be monitored?
Answer: The small system should remain on the SMP as a "groundwater"
system. Only the groundwater would be subject to unregulated contaminant
monitoring since the purchased surface water is supplied from a wholesale
water supplier. The wholesaler would be responsible for unregulated contaminant
monitoring of this supplied surface water.
I.10 Question: If a system which utilizes two primary sources
as the water sources for 20 water treatment plants, would it need to take
samples at each entry point to the distribution system (EPTDS) for all
20 systems?
Answer: The Rule states that a PWS must take samples at each EPTDS
representing each non-emergency water source in routine use over the entire
12 month monitoring period or the compliance monitoring point specified
by the State. However, the Rule also provides the State with the power
to select alternate sampling points for those systems in the SMP. EPA
would expect the system to conduct unregulated contaminant monitoring
at the representative set of EPTDS since these are the typical Phase II/V
monitoring sites.
I.11 Question: Can sampling dates be changed to match up with
other monitoring already scheduled?
Answer: For large systems (serving more than 10,000), this is clearly
the intent of the Rule. For small systems, this sampling schedule change
will need to be specified in the SMP. The SMP was designed to specifically
distribute the sampling effort equitably over the three year period, but
EPA allows the State to coordinate the unregulated contaminant monitoring
sampling with compliance monitoring already scheduled.
I.12 Question: Can a PWS take fewer unregulated contaminant monitoring
samples than are required for Phase II/V? For example: a PWS which has
one aquifer feeding into several Water Treatment Plants (WTPs). Does every
EPTDS at each of these WTPs have to monitor for unregulated contaminants?
Answer: That decision is left to the State. States have the ability
to change the locations of unregulated contaminant monitoring samples
from all entry points to representative Phase II/V compliance
sites. The UCMR states that the Phase II/V monitoring sites could be used
to reduce the burden on systems. If this has resulted in many "representative
monitoring sites", then the State probably had a good rationale for selecting
many sites, such as the possibility of contaminant sources nearby, or
previously observed contaminants in the system.
I.13 Question: If a water system adds a new source in the middle
of the year that they are monitoring, is the water system required to
monitor for one year from the activation date of the new EPTDS? Is the
PWS or the State supposed to notify EPA of the new EPTDS?
Answer: If the EPTDS brought on-line during the year that the PWS
is monitoring for unregulated contaminants, then the PWS must monitor
at the new EPTDS for the remainder of the 12 consecutive month period
of monitoring for unregulated contaminants. This may result in less than
a full set of data for this EPTDS. This new location will need to be added
by the PWS with respective Facility ID and Sampling Point ID to the SDWARS/UCMR
data system, in effect notifying EPA and the State of the new EPTDS.
I.14 Question: What is a water system to do if their well is not
operational during the month that unregulated contaminant monitoring samples
are to be collected?
Answer: Sampling for unregulated contaminants would be required
for the chemical parameters at the EPTDS or well(s) which are in operation
during the month of the scheduled sampling event. So, if a PWS is scheduled
to sample in April, but the particular EPTDS or well is off-line during
the entire month of April, then no chemical unregulated contaminant
monitoring sample would be required. If, however, it was operated for
any one day in the month of April, it would be required to take samples
for unregulated chemical contaminants. Since Aeromonas is being
sampled in the distribution system, there should never be a time when
the distribution system is "off-line." Therefore, Aeromonas samples
should be collected in each of the six sampling events in 2003.
I.15 Question: What types of treatment are considered to affect
the measurement of the unregulated contaminants?
Answer: Finished drinking water is the focus of unregulated contaminant
monitoring, because the UCMR is designed to assess both contaminant occurrence
and human exposure. When unregulated contaminant monitoring is performed
at source water locations and the results are negative, it is reasonable
to assume that water treatment will not introduce any of these unregulated
contaminants. However, some of these contaminants may be affected by treatment
and the only way to evaluate exposure is to monitor the finished water.
For unregulated contaminant monitoring, EPA considers water treatment
to include any physical or chemical process which improves the suitability
of the water for consumption and/or alters the composition of the source
water. These processes include, but are not limited to, processes such
as filtration, aeration, coagulation, sedimentation, softening, oxidation,
and disinfection. For blended water, if processes are applied to the blend
prior to the first customer, unregulated contaminant monitoring must be
conducted after the blending to evaluate any effects of that treatment.
If no such treatment is applied, and the source water is directly blended
with finished water, no additional unregulated contaminant monitoring
would be required.
I.16 Question: What should a PWS do when an invalid sample necessitates
a resample which occurs outside of the original quarterly monitoring period?
How will this impact the data from other analytes that were not invalid?
Answer: EPA recognizes that on occasion, circumstances beyond anyone's
control can invalidate a sample (e.g., broken vials, samples out of temperature
range, internal standard failures, etc.). Samples should be recollected
as soon as possible if for any reason the sample data becomes invalid.
These problems could be immediately apparent or they may result from QC
failures within the analysis batch or specific to an individual sample
analysis. These QC problems could be interpreted as "sampling deviations"
as identified in §141.40(a)(5)(ii)(F) of the September 17, 1999 UCMR.
Any problem with QC that may occur at the lab will need to be relayed
back to the PWS through, "...notification from the laboratory that you
must resample." Resampling should occur "...within 14 days of observing
the occurrence of the error" (§141.40(a)(5)(ii)(F)). If there is a QC
problem, it should be documented (verifying the intent to comply with
the regulation). Even if the subsequent sampling event is out of the official
sampling month, data slightly out of phase is better than no data at all.
On a case by case basis, EPA will generally deem these data to satisfy
the monitoring requirement for the original sampling period. If the entire
data set from that system for all collected unregulated contaminant monitoring
samples is invalid, then, all of the samples should be resampled, and
the schedule should be revised accordingly. If the impact is on an individual
method's data, the system can maintain their original sampling schedule.
The affected method should be resampled as soon as possible and then subsequent
sampling events for the affected method can correspond with the original
schedule.
J. State Issues about Data
J.1 Question: Can a State require submission of unregulated contaminant
monitoring data, which has been received by the PWS, before the specified
State review period?
Answer: A State may request these data earlier, but it can't require
it, unless there are specific State regulations. In those cases, it is
the responsibility of the PWS to expedite the report of these data to
the responsible State representative. EPA does not have a legal obligation
to make these data available prior to the specified State review period.
J.2 Question: The States are very concerned about what will happen
when the data are reported and people start asking questions about what
the data mean to public health. What is EPA doing about the CCR language
for detects reported under the UCMR, and what is EPA doing to prepare
for citizen concerns when the detects are reported in the CCRs?
Answer: EPA has drafted fact sheets on the unregulated contaminants
and their potential health effects. Fact
sheets and health advisories are available on-line and are available
through the Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 1-800-426-4791. See C.4.
J.3 Question: Are States required to keep an active database of
their unregulated contaminant monitoring data?
Answer: No, a State is not required to keep any unregulated contaminant
data. The reporting relationship is between the PWS and EPA. States may
request specific data reports from their PWSs and may access the SDWARS/UCMR
data system to review the PWS approved unregulated chemical contaminant
monitoring results.
J.4 Question: Is a PWS in a State which has not entered into a
Partnership Agreement required to report unregulated contaminant results
in its CCR?
Answer: Yes, a PWS must report positive unregulated contaminant
results in its CCR.
J.5 Question: Will the data collected by EPA be available to the
States to view?
Answer: The monitoring results for unregulated chemical contaminants
can be viewed through SDWARS/UCMR. EPA will send the Aeromonas
data to the States.
J.6 Question: What is the procedure for providing data to a State
when it goes directly from the PWS to EPA?
Answer: Once chemical data have been reviewed and approved by a
PWS, individuals at the State and EPA with review responsibilities can
concurrently view the chemical data directly on-line within the Safe Drinking
Water Accession and Review System (SDWARS/UCMR). The State and EPA personnel
will need to register with CDX for access to SDWARS/UCMR, establishing
a User Name and password on CDX. State users cannot register through the
normal open registration process provided to a PWS or laboratory. States
should contact their EPA Regional representative for the UCMR for more
information. Contact information is shown in the following table:
Region
|
Contact
|
Telephone
|
Region 1
|
Chris Ryan
|
617 918-1567
|
Region 2
|
Robert Poon
|
212 637-3821
|
Region 3
|
Michelle Hoover
|
215 814-5258
|
Region 4
|
Janine Morris
|
404 562-9480
|
Region 5
|
Janet Kuefler
|
312 886-0123
|
Region 6
|
Andrew J. Waite
|
214 665-7332
|
Region 7
|
Stan Calow
|
913 551-7410
|
Region 8
|
Rod Glebe
|
303 312-6627
|
Region 9
|
Jill Korte
|
415 972-3562
|
Region 10
|
Gene Taylor
|
206 553-1389
|
Aeromonas data will be forwarded to the respective State after the
data are reported to EPA.
K. State Monitoring Plans (SMPs)
K.1 Question: When should a primary small water system be replaced
by an alternate small system in a State Monitoring Plan?
Answer: Some specific examples are discussed in this Section. In
general, the primary small systems randomly selected for unregulated contaminant
monitoring should only be replaced by an alternate if they have become
ineligible. This would include any system that:
- is inactive;
- has merged with another water system (i.e., effectively changing
its source);
- purchases all of its water from another system;
- is a transient non-community system;
- has changed type (e.g., from CWS to NTNCWS);
- has changed water source (e.g., from GW to SW); or
- has changed population size category (e.g., from a very small system,
serving <500 people to a small system serving between 501 and 3,300).
K.2 Question: When should a primary small water system NOT be
replaced by an alternate small system in a State Monitoring Plan?
Answer: A small system cannot be removed because of a known history
of contaminant occurrence or lack of occurrence. While there will be other
circumstances that may cause an alternate system to be selected, these
rules must be followed carefully to ensure the statistical integrity of
the national sample.
K.3 Question: If a system has changed population, from 700 to
2,100, for example, but hasn't changed size category (i.e., it is still
in the 500-3,300 category) should it be replaced?
Answer: No, it should not be replaced.
K.4 Question: If a small system is under an enforcement action
should it be replaced?
Answer: Yes, if the system has changed source waters as part of
the action (i.e., it is having water trucked in) then it should be replaced.
No, if it is still using the same source it should not be replaced.
K.5 Question: If a small system gets taken over by a larger system
should it be replaced?
Answer: Yes, if by virtue of changing ownership, it is now 100%
supplied by the large system it should be replaced. If only the ownership
changes, but the operation of the system remains static, then no, the
system should not be replaced.
K.6 Question: If a small system is a continual problem because
it does not collect samples on time, etc., can it be replaced?
Answer: For the integrity of the national sample it would be best
if the system could be kept in the program. If the State can help to sample
such a system it would be helpful. In an extreme case it could be replaced,
but enforcement action may result for noncompliance of the small system.
K.7 Question: Are the small systems that are selected now on the
State Monitoring Plan for 5 years or do they stay on the State Monitoring
Plan forever?
Answer: The small systems selected for the State Monitoring Plans
are included only for this 5-year listing cycle (2001-2005). It would
be expected that the random selection process will produce a different
set of small systems in the next 5-year listing cycle (2006-2010). One
deviation from this might be a State/Territory which only has one or two
small systems.
K.8 Question: How will changes that happen to some systems between
State Monitoring Plan approval and 2003 be dealt with?
Answer: States should inform EPA or the implementation contractor
(GLEC, 231-941-2230) when any change causes a small system to become ineligible.
K.9 Question: Can all the small systems selected in a State Monitoring
Plan be sampled in the same year?
Answer: They should not be sampled in the same year. The basis
for the national representative sample of small systems has specific scientific,
technical, and practical underpinnings that are incorporated into its
approach. The UCMR indicates that States may modify the State Monitoring
Plan by changing the monitoring year and months. This was done, in part,
to recognize the three-year compliance monitoring cycle used in most States.
The reasons for scheduling "one-third per year" are that:
- National surveys of monitoring for water quality should be done over
at least a three-year period to ensure that monitoring is not focused
only in an extreme event year, thus, taking into account changes over
the hydrologic cycle.
- Spreading the monitoring over three years also provides for variations
in chemical use from year to year.
- The assignment of the year to a system was random, improving the representativeness
of the sample (less bias toward any particular year).
- EPA has contracts with a limited number of laboratories to conduct
unregulated contaminant analyses and these contract labs will have finite
capacity to support analysis. Consequently, limiting the number of samples
to be analyzed in a particular year improves laboratory efficiency.
K.10 Question: How were the 800 small PWS chosen?
Answer: All systems serving less than 10,000 persons were given
a weight proportional to the population they served, then they were selected
at random.
K.11 Question: How were the 800 small PWS assigned a year in which
to sample?
Answer: Once a system was chosen it was assigned randomly to 1
of the 3 years in which the unregulated contaminant monitoring will be
conducted.
L. Acronyms
CCR |
Consumer Confidence Report |
CDX |
Central Data Exchange |
CFR |
Code of Federal Regulations |
CWS |
Community Water System |
DCPA |
Dimethyl Tetrachloroterephthalate
(Dacthal) |
EPA |
Environmental Protection Agency |
EPA HQ |
Environmental Protection Agency
Headquarters |
EPTDS |
Entry Point to the Distribution
System |
EST/EDT |
Eastern Standard Time/Daylight
Savings Time |
FAQ |
Frequently Asked Questions |
FR |
Federal Register |
GLEC |
Great Lakes Environmental Center |
GW |
Groundwater |
ID |
Identification |
KB |
Kilobyte |
MB |
Megabyte |
MCL |
Maximum Contaminant Level |
MHz |
Megahertz |
MRL |
Minimum Reporting Level |
MTBE |
Methyl tert-butyl ether |
N/A |
Not Analyzed |
NTNCWS |
Non-Transient Non-Community Water
System |
PC |
Personal Computer |
PE |
Performance Evaluation |
PN |
Public Notification |
PT |
Performance Testing |
PWS |
Public Water System |
PWSID |
Public Water System Identification |
QC |
Quality Control |
SDWARS/UCMR |
Safe Drinking Water Accession and
Review System/Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule |
SDWIS |
Safe Drinking Water Information
System |
SMP |
State Monitoring Plan |
SW |
Surface water |
TTHM/HAA5 |
Total Trihalomethanes/ Sum of Five
Haloacetic Acids |
UCMR |
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
Rule |
WTP |
Water Treatment Plant |
XML |
Extensible Markup Language |
Y2K |
Year 2000 |
|
|
You will need Adobe Acrobat Reader to view the Adobe PDF files
on this page. See
EPA's PDF page for more information about getting and using
the free Acrobat Reader. |
|