|
 |
|
UCMR Update Issue
6
| The "Light at the End of the Tunnel" Issue |
EPA 815-N-03-002a, April 2003
UMCR Update Issue Number 6 - This information sheet, The UCMR
Update, is the sixth to be issued by the Technical Support Center (TSC)
of the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (OGWDW). Future issues
will be distributed as needed to maintain information flow related to the
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (UCMR for those of you who
may have forgotten).
Editor's Note: March is gone but not forgotten, as I am still
thawing from the icy weather here in Ohio. By June, I might actually feel
warm again. However, here is a thought that will add warmth to anyone.
With the changing of the calendar year, there is now a light at the end
of the tunnel. The cynical among you might say it's a train, but I digress.
In any case, 2003 is the FINAL year of monitoring for the current cycle
of UCMR! That's right, F-I-N-A-L. Look at how far we have come in the
past three years. We are in the home stretch now and it should be easy
sailing from here on out.
As an aside, I have to give out a coveted "UCMR Update Lifetime
Achievement Award" to..me! You probably have not noticed, but with this
issue, I have gone where no previous UCMR Update editor has gone. I have
served as editor of the Update for three, count them, consecutive issues.
The previous record, held by Jim Walasek, was two. Having boldly crossed
the three-issue barrier, I now seek to go on and publish four, maybe even
five, more of these newsletters. That is of course, unless they decide
to haul me out of here kicking and screaming first. Now, on with the info.
I. Final Year of Monitoring: Facts, Figures, and
Statistics
As it is officially the "Final Year of Sampling" in this cycle of the
UCMR, TSC thought it would be interesting to see where we all are in this
process thus far. To those of you who are into number crunching, feast
on this. As for me, I detest simply posting stats, but here is where we
stand as of right now:
- Screening Survey for Small System List 2 Chemical: 100% Complete!!!
- Screening Survey for Large System List 2 Chemical: 42.8% Complete
(77 of 180)
- Assessment Monitoring for Small Systems: 65.3% Complete (522 out of
800)
- Assessment Monitoring for Large Systems: 1378 (and counting) systems
have reported data to the Safe Drinking Water Accession and Review System
TSC is exceedingly pleased with the participation thus far. Keep it up!
Please note that this is the LAST YEAR for PWSs to conduct their
List 1 assessment monitoring responsibilities. This was the subject of
the previous, and now infamous, reminder letter that sent in November
2002. The Magic 8-Ball® on my desk indicates that there could be another
reminder letter or calls at some point in the future with the message
"Outcome Likely". However, this same oracle has told me on numerous occasions
that my lottery numbers were going to hit, and I haven't seen a penny
yet. Please remember that this letter or call, should it come, will only
serve as a reminder of UCMR sampling duties to those that have yet to
report List 1 Assessment Monitoring data to SDWARS.
II. The First Semi-biannual "UCMR Golden Faucet"
Award
The Golden Faucet Award, or simply the Faucy, was established
last week when we here at TSC realized that we needed an instrument with
which to reward those who went above and beyond in performing duties related
to the UCMR. The award was established to honor "individuals, groups,
PWSs, laboratories, States, and/or EPA Regions who exhibit extraordinary
efforts supporting the implementation of the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
Regulation". This issue's Faucy goes to Robert Poon
of EPA Region 2 for his tireless efforts in following up with PWSs in
the region that had not yet reported any data to SDWARS. Many of these
systems had had difficulty in working with SDWARS and Robert was able
to effectively help them resolve these issues. It is effort like this
that helps everyone accomplish his or her respective responsibilities
within the UCMR. We here at TSC appreciate Robert's hard work, as it is
often impossible for us to follow up with each and every system participating
in the UCMR.
For his efforts, Robert would have received an actual golden faucet. However,
security is watching the bathroom way too closely and I have no gold paint.
As a compromise, he will be receiving an official commemorative certificate
from TSC. In all seriousness, we here at TSC do like to acknowledge hard
work in support of the UCMR. It makes the whole process go more smoothly.
Anyone who would like to nominate a recipient for the Faucy award
should feel free to contact me at
wagner.cory@epa.gov.
III. UCMR Forum
As it is the final year of this cycle of UCMR, TSC would like to gather
some information and opinions about how this cycle of UCMR has gone for
everyone who has been involved. This is your chance to tell us what you
liked, disliked, and felt could be improved about all aspects of the UCMR
implementation. Liked SDWARS but felt the Aeromonas reporting system
was a pain in the donkey? Let us know! Were the instructions, technical
assistance, and FAQs helpful or did they make you want to pull out your
hair? Tell us about it! You are all very valuable stakeholders in this
process and in the development of the next cycle of the UCMR. We will
attempt to post some of the most insightful comments and give an overall
consensus of the opinions in the next UCMR Update.
IV. UCMR Data
Yes, there are some! Actually, there are quite a lot. A new batch of data
has been posted for public viewing at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/data/ucmrgetdata.html.
EPA is posting data on a quarterly basis. Now, you may go to the website
and say "Hey, where's my data? I reported it, why isn't it here?"
An excellent question, I must say. The answer is that it was likely held
back by our data QC review system. Why? Well, there are several reasons
data may be held for review.
- Duplication. If a sample ID is duplicated at different facilities
within a PWS or if a record is entered twice, the data are held back.
Believe me, once is plenty for EPA.
- Accuracy results below 2%.
- Perchlorate results reported from a laboratory that is not approved
by EPA. Please make sure your lab is APPROVED to test for Perchlorate.
- Reporting List 2 data to SDWARS using methods from List 1 or reporting
List 2 data when a PWS was not assigned to monitor for List 2 contaminants.
TSC does appreciate the extra mile, but we certainly don't want anyone
to be sampling anything they aren't required to.
- Extraction/analysis date before sample collection date. Unless you
can prove possession of a time machine, I don't think this is possible.
- Sample point delineation issues. In SDWARS, sample points associated
with List 1 and List 2 Chemical monitoring should only be designated
as either entry point (EP) or source water (SR). TSC is aware that SDWARS
includes other options, but they aren't valid for List 1 or 2 chemical
monitoring. Please do not select them. Midpoint (MD), Lowest Disinfectant
Residual (LD), and Maximum Residence (MR) were developed for Aeromonas
sampling (which is not being reported via SDWARS). Unknown (UK)
should not be used, as TSC will have to call you later and find out
if the sample point is a SR or EP. Furthermore, laboratories should
only assign sample analysis type "raw field sample (rfs)"
or "raw duplicate sample (rds)" to SR sample points. In contrast,
sample analysis type "treated field sample (tfs)" or "treated
duplicate sample (tds)" should only be assigned to EP sample point
types, with the exception of a system that uses no water treatment.
If your data are not posted, please review them and see if they fall
under one of the above categories. Also, please keep the above rules in
mind when posting data in the future.
V. Aeromonas Updates
As stated in past issues, the following section will only apply to those
systems selected to participate in the List 2 Screening Survey for the
microbiological contaminant Aeromonas.
- The first set of data sheets from the PWSs that sampled in January
have begun to come in. For those of you that have sent them in already,
great job! We look forward to receiving the data sheets from the rest
of the water systems soon.
- Recently, the question has been raised as to whether a system that
is supposed to sample in a given month is required to submit data in
that month as well. The answer is no. TSC requests that you send your
data sheets in as soon as you can but it is not required that it be
the same month as you sampled. A general rule of thumb would be to try
to submit your data sheet within the month after you sampled.
- One thing that TSC has noticed on the data sheets is that some of
you have not filled in the approval date and method fields. The approval
date is the date that you review the results from the lab and decide
that they are fit for submittal to EPA. The method is simply the method
used to obtain the water quality parameters. Please fill these in, as
they will save EPA and you a phone call in the future.
- TSC would also like to request that you use the data sheets that
were sent to you for the month in which you were supposed to sample.
Please do not make your own sheet, or adapt a template that you may
have come across via your Aeromonas Laboratory. If you do not have your
sheets, TSC will be happy to resend them. The reason for this is that
the sheets are coded for consistency with database that we are using
to upload the data you send us. If the sheet is incorrectly coded, it
is like trying to pass a square peg through a round hole. It just doesn't
work.
- The list of approved Aeromonas
laboratories has been expanded since the last UCMR Update
was released. If you are still trying to find a laboratory to handle
your Aeromonas analyses, be sure to follow the link above. Remember
that the lab that you use for Aeromonas analyses must be approved by
EPA.
VI. Coming Attractions
It came upon them in the fall of 1999, innocently enough. It looked
to be an easy regulatory action. After three years of sampling, reporting,
reviewing and barely clinging to sanity, they thought it was over. The
survivors believed nothing like it could ever happen again. They were
wrong.
UCMR CYCLE 2: The Next Batch
Coming to a PWS near you in 2006
While it reads like a B-horror movie trailer, the reality is that the
UCMR is on a five-year cycle. So as this cycle concludes, a new one begins
to take shape. It's almost enough to keep you up at night, I know. However,
the UCMR plays a crucial role in the protection of public health, a common
goal of water systems, states, and the EPA. This new UCMR will require
additional regulatory action to promulgate a different contaminant list
and other specific requirements. We will keep all interested parties informed
about developments through the normal Federal Register publications,
web postings, and most certainly the continued publication of the UCMR
Update. Stay tuned.
VII. Contact Information
A general reminder to laboratories and PWSs: when contacting EPA about
UCMR issues, please use your USEPA Lab ID number or PWSID number, respectively.
General UCMR questions may be directed to the Drinking
Water Hotline at:
1-800-426-4791
Questions regarding registration for or use of the SDWARS/UCMR
reporting
system may be directed to the SDWARS Help Desk at:
1-888-890-1995
Correspondence with TSC and comments on the Update
(c/o Cory Wagner) may be directed to:
UCMR Coordinator
Technical Support Center (MS-140)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Fax: 513-569-7191
|
