DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION [25 PA. CODE CH. 16] Corrective Amendment to § 16.102 [35 Pa.B. 1890] The Department of Environmental Protection has discovered a discrepancy between the agency text of 25 Pa. Code § 16.102 (relating to approved EPA analytical methods and detection limits), as deposited with the Legislative Reference Bureau and the official text published at 35 Pa.B. 1223, 1227 and 1228 (February 12, 2005) and scheduled to be published in the Pennsylvania Code Reporter (Master Transmittal Sheet No. 365 (April, 2005). The text of § 16.102(a)(3) was incorrect.
Therefore, under 45 Pa.C.S. § 901: The Department of Environmental Protection has deposited with the Legislative Reference Bureau a corrective amendment to 25 Pa. Code § 16.102. The corrective amendment to 25 Pa. Code § 16.102 is effective as of February 12, 2005, the date the defective official text was printed in the Pennsylvania Bulletin.
The correct version of 25 Pa. Code § 16.102 appears in Annex A.
(Editor's Note: This document was inadvertently printed as a rulemaking at 35 Pa.B. 1761 (March 19, 2005). It is being reprinted as a statement of policy as set forth in Annex A).
Annex A TITLE 25. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PART I. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Subpart A. PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS ARTICLE I. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS CHAPTER 16. WATER QUALITY TOXICS MANAGEMENT STRATEGY--
STATEMENT OF POLICYSubchapter B. ANALYTICAL METHODS AND DETECTION LIMITS FOR TOXIC SUBSTANCES GENERAL PROVISION § 16.102. Approved EPA Analytical and Detection Limits.
(a) Appendix A, Tables 2A and 2B contain the following data elements and is to be used as follows:
(1) Parameter + (CAS) is the chemical name preceded by an alphanumeric code for the priority pollutants. Other inorganics (metals) listed on the application form have also been included. The Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) number, a unique chemical identifier, is also listed for completeness of identification. The CAS number should always be verified to ensure proper identification, particularly with chemicals with ambiguous or unfamiliar names, or both.
(2) Methods number + (description) includes the approved EPA procedures by identifying number and an abbreviated description of each. The methods are detailed in one or more of the following sources:
(i) Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes, EPA 600/4-79-020, Revised March 1984.
(ii) 40 CFR Part 136 (relating to guidelines establishing test procedures). The EPA provides a list of still other sources for these methods in 40 CFR Part 136. Methods that were not developed by the EPA, that is, have no EPA identifying method number, but are approved by the EPA for use in NPDES related analyses are marked with an asterisk (*) in Appendix A, Tables 2A and 2B.
(iii) Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 20th Edition, APHA-AWWA-WEF, 1998.
(iv) Hach Handbook of Wastewater Analysis, Hach Chemical Company, 1979.
(v) Direct Current Plasma (DCP) Optical Emission Spectrometric Method for Trace Elemental Analysis of Water and Wastes, Method AES0029. Applied Research Laboratories, Inc., 1986-Revised 1991, Fison Instruments, Inc.
(vi) ASTM Annual Book of Standards, Section 11, Water. American Society for Testing and Materials, 1999.
(3) MDL is the method detection limit for each chemical for each method. The MDL is defined as the minimum concentration that can be measured and reported with 99% confidence that the value is above zero--that is, something is really there. The MDL concentrations listed were obtained using reagent water. Similar results were achieved using representative wastewaters. The MDL achieved in a given analysis will vary depending on instrument sensitivity and matrix effects.
(i) When MDLs are not available, detection limits based on other criteria, such as instrument signal to noise ratios, are included in Appendix A. Table 3 Detection limits for metals are generally instrument detection limits.
(ii) For any pollutant with an effluent limitation below the method detection limit, the permittee is expected to generally achieve the detection limit of the most sensitive method that is below detection available.
(iii) If two approved analytical methods for the same parameter have detection limits that differ by less than 1 ug/l or a factor of 2 (whichever is greater), the permit may be written designating either method as acceptable. The permittee also has the option of using an alternate method approved by the Department and the EPA that the permittee selects as long as he achieves the level of detection of the cited method or the numerical water quality-based limit.
(iv) The primary source for detection limits in Appendix A, Tables 2A and 2B is EPA MDL studies. However, when the EPA has not performed an MDL study or reported the detection limit, other sources--particularly, Standard Methods--are consulted. When there is no literature on detection limit, the Department's Bureau of Laboratories may be asked to determine the detection limit based on an MDL study.
(4) Permittees will be required to meet the detection limits listed in Appendix A, Tables 2A and 2B. If the detection limit is not listed, a permittee shall develop a detection limit using an MDL study.
(5) When permittees cannot meet a listed detection limit, they may be granted case-specific MDLs if they submit complete documentation demonstrating a matrix effect in their particular effluent. The permittees shall follow the procedure for determining MDLs published as Appendix B of 40 CFR Part 136 (relating to guidelines establishing text procedures). The Bureau of Laboratories will evaluate the data and advise the regional office of their decision.
(b) Appendix A, Table 3 gives a more detailed description of the EPA 600-series of analytical procedures for organic pollutants. Further detail is contained in 40 CFR Part 136.
[Pa.B. Doc. No. 05-554. Filed for public inspection March 25, 2005, 9:00 a.m.]
